There is not a lot I could add to this.. It is perfect as it is. 🙂
I hate to break this to those of you of the centrist or left wing point of view. I’ve seen the future of the Tea Party Movement and it is us.Well, that is to say some of us.
If you have read my Twitter Bio, I mention that I left the Republican Party due to the dominant influence of the Tea Party over party leadership and day to day operations. This “grassroots” movement funded by the Koch brothers began organizing to lower taxes and federal influence over “Murica”. This was around the time that this Black guy popped up in the White House. They were and remain a far right-wing extreme of the conservative movement. However, instead of true conservatism, they focus on taxes that are already lower than at any time in over 50 years and the feds doing the unthinkable, trying to ensure that local governments treat…
View original post 876 more words
This is in reply to the following blog post:
https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/comment-page-1/#comment-68
I will just copy and paste my reply to that article here on my page.
Before I begin, I will just inform you, I will be using caps in some places for emphasis, it is
not yelling. I try to draw lines around quoted text from the sources I used,
I hope it is clear what was sourced and what I wrote.
If I do not draw lines around the links, that means it is just used as a source,
and I have not quoted any text from the article. I was trying to kep this
as short as possible.
I will also be providing many sources, NONE of them FAR Left Wing
Sources, I try to use balanced sources when proving my argument.
____________________________________
—————————————————————
Do you know what a SCIF is?
That is the way that CLASSIFIED Communication is transmitted, stored and read…
That law you cite in the first part of your post, relates to SCIF created communications.
SCIF = Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility
While it is true that Hillary used a private email for much of her work as Secretary of State,
she also had a SEPARATE dedicated government account, that is used only for BORN Classified Communication.
anyway, the law you used to prove your point, is NOT related to REGULAR email, it is
related to SCIF created Classified Communication.
If Hillary is indicted for this sham of a crime, then so will MANY HIGH LEVEL, Career Diplomats
who have served our country with honor for many years, through many Presidents, since they are the ones who originally sent these emails. Colin Powell would also have to be indicted, since he did the same exact thing, in using a private non-government email, his was actually at far more risk, being it was an AOL account, and not a private secured server in his home.
____________________________________
—————————————————————
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html
But the bulk of the emails that State Department reviewers deemed classified were sent by career officials engaged in the day-to-day business of diplomacy.
Some diplomats point to the volume of classified email as evidence of systemic flaws in deciding what information is sensitive rather than an indictment of Clinton’s actions.
“If experienced diplomats and foreign service officers are doing it, the issue is more how the State Department deals with information in the modern world more than something specific about what Hillary Clinton did,” said Philip H. Gordon, who was assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs and was the author of 45 of the sensitive emails from his non-classified government account.
____________________________________
Former ambassador Dennis Ross, who has held key diplomatic posts in administrations of both parties, said that one of his exchanges now marked “secret” contained information that government officials last year allowed him to publish in a book.
____________________________________
—————————————————————
The fact that you quote Bob Woodward, who has become a joke, and a shell of his former self, is also indication that you did not research this paper very well. Watergate was not about the
tapes, it was covering up theft, the tapes were secondary.
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/president-richard-nixon-and-the-watergate-scandal.html
In the future, if you wish to be taken seriously, perhaps you should refrain from using
the Daily Caller, Western Journalism and the Washington Examiner as sources.
These are not by any means, unbiased sources and tend to peddle heavily in
FAR Right Wing lies.
What I find troubling about your paper, is that you seem to veer off into WHY the attack happened… Do you know that while that Al Qaeda LINKED group originally took responsibility, a few hours later,
they denied it.
“Fog of War”, there is a REASON why that term exists.
It is now known that Ahmed Abu Khatallah, is the terrorist behind the attack,
and he is not linked to Al Qaeda, he was nothing more than a small time militia leader.
You quote Western Journalism, who seems to blame Obama for Libya, when in fact it was France and Britain who came to the USA for help in the NATO Backed Mission… wanting to help the Libyan people who had risen up against Gaddafi during the Arab Spring.
Where do you think the phrase, “Leading From Behind” came from?
____________________________________
—————————————————————
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2060412,00.html
How Libya Became a French and British War
____________________________________
—————————————————————
You talk about the Saudi email, why does that matter?
Hillary is NOT responsible for the attack happening, and fact is, this investigation is NOTHING but a political game. At NO OTHER TIME in our nations history, has a Terror attack on foreign soil been politicized.
It is no secret and has NEVER been a secret that Saudi Arabia is tied to a LOT of attacks.
Why do you find this so shocking? It was repeated over and over again, after 9/11.
Bush flew Saudi’s out of the USA after 911… Do you think he was covering something up?
WHO knows, it was never investigated half as much as Banghazi has been investigated.
That said, it is pretty clear that Saudi Arabia is NOT tied to the attack in Libya.
As for the donation to the Clinton Foundation, that is POCKET change to the Saudi’s
and if you look at the Clinton Foundation Page, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
donated FAR MORE money to the Clinton Foundation, as did The Netherlands
via the Nationale Postcode Loterij.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors
Perhaps you are not aware of the fact that Norway also donated heavily to the
Clinton Foundation, as did Sweden via The Swedish Postcode Lottery.
Fact is, Saudi Arabia was donating to the Clinton Foundation BEFORE Hillary
was Secretary of State.
Perhaps a donation is just that, a donation.
Most people believe that it was arms deals that prompted the Saudi Donation,
however, the USA has been selling arms to Saudi Arabia, since BEFORE Hillary Clinton
became Secretary of State.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/14/bush.mideast/
You claim that the State Department IGNORED requests for more security in Benghazi, but that is
not actually the case, the opposite is actually true.
Ambassador Chris Stevens refused offers of more security before the attack.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/05/15/official-amb-stevens-refused-additional-security.html
You believe that Hillary should quote: “Take the fall” over the attack in Benghazi,
however, 3,000 Americans are killed on US SOIL, and Bush is left alone.
Fact is, there is no link of Saudi Arabia being involved, Ahmed Abu Khattala is
believed to be the “mastermind” behind the attack, that is NOT even in dispute…
By the way, he is from Libya… and ran a small militia.
____________________________________
—————————————————————
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/world/middleeast/apprehension-of-ahmed-abu-khattala-may-begin-to-answer-questions-on-assault.html
During the assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, Mr. Abu Khattala was a vivid presence. Witnesses saw him directing the swarming attackers who ultimately killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
Afterward, he offered contradictory denials of his role, sometimes trying to say that he did not do it but strongly approved. He appeared to enjoy his notoriety.
Even after President Obama vowed to hunt down the attackers, Mr. Abu Khattala sat for repeated interviews with Western journalists and even invited a correspondent for tea in the modest home where he lived openly, with his mother, in the el-Leithi neighborhood of Benghazi.
But for all his brazenness, Mr. Abu Khattala also holds many tantalizing secrets for the Americans still investigating and debating the attack.
Captured by military commandos and law enforcement agents early on Monday, Mr. Abu Khattala may now help address some of the persistent questions about the identity and motives of the attackers. The thriving industry of conspiracy theories, political scandals, talk show chatter and congressional hearings may now confront the man federal investigators say played the central role in the attack.
Despite extensive speculation about the possible role of Al Qaeda in directing the attack, Mr. Abu Khattala is a local, small-time Islamist militant. He has no known connections to international terrorist groups, say American officials briefed on the criminal investigation and intelligence reporting, and other Benghazi Islamists and militia leaders who have known him for many years.
____________________________________
—————————————————————
http://www.businessinsider.com/insiders-this-is-what-really-happened-in-libya-2012-9?IR=T
“It’s really simple how it happened. First there was the video, that no one would have known about if it weren’t for the Egyptian media blowing it up. Then people protested in Cairo, and people in Libya saw it on TV, so they decided to protest in Benghazi.”
From there, VanDyke said, all it took was a few phone calls.
“The people up in the green mountains, the extremists, they saw their opportunity to pounce.”
VanDyke said the video protestors probably had no intent to get violent.
“The extremists, who the government knew was there, they used the protestors as a shield. I’ve experienced how quickly the mobilization can happen firsthand. All it takes is a couple cell phones. All of sudden there’s a handful of trucks packed with fighters.”
____________________________________
—————————————————————
If career Diplomats do not blame Hillary, I don’t understand why you
view HER as being at fault, and that she should take the blame. That
just makes no sense what so ever.
____________________________________
—————————————————————
Open Letter to Trey Gowdy… Benghazi – written by 2 Career Diplomats, Douglas McElhaney and David B. Dlouhy
http://europe.newsweek.com/knowing-its-dangers-chris-stephens-still-chose-travel-benghazi-335046?rm=eu
You believe Hillary should be held accountable for the fact that Saudi Arabia has been
an American ally for MANY years. Hillary is responsible for that, even though she was
NOT President when that alliance started, nor was she Secretary of State?
You are clearly looking for just ANYTHING to hang around Hillary’s neck,
and it is clear that it does not matter that she is NOT at fault, you want to make
her responsible no matter what.
As for attacks being politicized, if you want to know who to LISTEN to… Listen to the Diplomats, they do not in any way blame Hillary for that attack, nor do they blame her for the deaths
of those 4 Americans.
http://europe.newsweek.com/knowing-its-dangers-chris-stephens-still-chose-travel-benghazi-335046?rm=eu
(yes, I posted that link twice, because it is very important and is most telling as to who Diplomats blame for this attack.)
By the way, two of Americans killed in the attack, former Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were contractors working for the CIA as is now no secret, and were under
the command of General David Petraeus, NOT Hillary Clinton.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/benghazi-cia-libya_n_2062131.html
Why hasn’t General Petraeus been subject to these same investigations?
I will tell you why, it is because this is nothing more than a political game for the Republicans
who want to beat Hillary in this election.
See, you are under the MISTAKEN belief that nobody has investigated this
attack or the email situation… The New York Times did investigate the attack and they found
that it started, just as was originally said, a demonstration against that stupid
video The Innocents of Muslims.
Proof via this email, that it started as a demonstration:
https://www.rt.com/usa/complete-emails-guccifer-clinton-554/
This was also proven to be the case when the New York Times did a year long in depth
investigation into that attack.
____________________________________
—————————————————————
A Deadly Mix in Benghazi
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0
The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.
____________________________________
—————————————————————
As for the email issue, Newsweek did an in depth investigation into
this issue, and found NO Wrong doing/ Nothing illegal on the part of Hillary using
a private secured server, which was legal at the time of her tenure.
____________________________________
—————————————————————
http://europe.newsweek.com/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-424187
Start with this: Powell and Rice, like all modern secretaries of state, each had at least two email accounts—one personal and the other for communications designated as highly classified at the time of their creation. For classified information, both of them—and their aides with appropriate clearance—had a sensitive compartmented information facility, or what is known in intelligence circles as a SCIF. Most senior officials who deal with classified information have a SCIF in their offices and their homes.
These are not just extra offices with a special lock. Each SCIF is constructed following complex rules imposed by the intelligence and defense communities. Restrictions imposed on the builders are designed to ensure that no unauthorized personnel can get into the room, and the SCIF cannot be accessed by hacking or electronic eavesdropping. A group called the technical surveillance countermeasures team (TSCM) investigates the area or activity to check that all communications are protected from outside surveillance and cannot be intercepted.
____________________________________
—————————————————————
ABC News, also did an in depth analysis on whether Hillary committed any crimes regarding
her emails,
and they found that NO, she did not break the law.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499
Conclusion
To be clear, none of this means Clinton won’t be charged. There may be a trove of non-public evidence against her about which we simply do not know. It’s also possible that the FBI recommends charges and federal prosecutors decide not to move forward as occurs in many cases. No question, that could create an explosive and politicized showdown. But based on what we do know from what has been made public, there doesn’t seem to be a legitimate basis for any sort of criminal charge against her. I fear many commentators are allowing their analysis to become clouded by a long standing distrust, or even hatred of Hillary Clinton.
_________________________________________________
—————————————————————
also… here are some rules related to REGULAR email, that you clearly missed.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/85696….
5 FAM 443.5 Points to Remember About E-Mail-
5 FAM 443.5: – “Messages that are not records may be deleted when no longer needed..”
________________________________________________
—————————————————————
b. The intention of this guidance is not to require the preservation of every E-mail
message. Its purpose is to direct the preservation of those messages that contain
information that is necessary to ensure that departmental policies,
programs, and activities are adequately documented. E-mail message creators
and recipients must decide whether a particular message is appropriate for
preservation In making these decisions, all personnel should exercise the
same judgment they use when determining whether to retain and file paper records
**************************************************************
Emails may be deleted from any electronic media when they are deemed to be a non-Record as defined by NARA.
Official guidance from NARA
“Currently, in many agencies, employees manage their own email accounts and apply their own understanding of Federal records management. This means that all employees are required to review each message, identify its value, and either delete it or move it to a record keeping system. Some email, such as spam or all-staff announcements, may be deleted immediately.”