myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Benghazi-gate
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 108, 109, 110 ... 122, 123, 124  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588

PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Patience in a presidential primary campaign is crucial. Pretty hard to see what's going on just considering Iowa and New Hampshire. Watch what you say, because you could be eating crow a few months from now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9118
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

John McCain stomped on W in NH in 2000...we all know how that turned out.. Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All the chanting about Hillary and her "scandals." Reminds me of the old saw, a lie is halfway around the world before truth gets its pant on. Here is an explanation of Hillary's e-mails. You will all remember that mrgybe has refused to be specific about how this is a crime--he channeled his inner Isobars in saying, in essence, do your own research. Well, let's look at the rest of the story:

Quote:
The shocking truth about the last two Republican secretaries of state has finally come out: Colin Powell and aides to Condoleezza Rice trafficked in classified information on their personal email accounts. This is an enormous scandal!

Oh, wait. No, it’s not.

This news involving Powell and Rice is meaningless except that it sets up a rational conversation (finally) about the Hillary Clinton bogus “email-gate” imbroglio. Perhaps the partisans on each side will now be more willing to listen to the facts. From the beginning, the “scandal” about Clinton using a personal email account when she was secretary of state—including the finding that a few documents on it were retroactively deemed classified—has been a big nothing-burger perpetuated for partisan purposes, with reports spooned out by Republicans attempting to deceive or acting out of ignorance. Conservative commentators have raged, presidential candidates have fallen over themselves in apoplectic babbling, and some politicians have proclaimed that Clinton should be in jail for mishandling classified information. The nonsense has been never-ending, and attempts to cut through the fog of duplicity have been fruitless.

But Powell and Rice’s aides did nothing wrong. (I’m going to focus on them so that partisans who say Clinton broke the law have to attack respected Republicans first.) 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.

Most permanent SCIFs have physical and technical security, called TEMPEST. The facility is guarded and in operation 24 hours a day, seven days a week; any official on the SCIF staff must have the highest security clearance. There is supposed to be sufficient personnel continuously present to observe the primary, secondary and emergency exit doors of the SCIF. Each SCIF must apply fundamental red-black separation to prevent the inadvertent transmission of classified data over telephone lines, power lines or signal lines.

I could keep going for thousands and thousands of words explaining the security measures used for SCIFs. And all of this—all of this—is designed to protect the confidentiality of emails and communications determined to be classified at the time of transmission.

In addition to the classified email system used in SCIFs, there are personal email accounts. Prior to 2013, these could be accounts inside the relatively unsecure State Department system or private email accounts. If they are private—running through a commercial or personal server—they have to follow some rules set up in the Federal Register. There are no guards, no red-black procedures, no construction rules, no special rooms, no TEMPEST, no TSCM. And most important: Until 2013, there was no rule against using them. In fact, the rules specifically allowed for them. Check out the relevant section in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Chapter XII, Subchapter B, section 1236.22b) for the rules regarding the use of personal email accounts by any State Department official.

To give an idea of how insecure these communications could be, Powell’s personal email is an AOL account, and he used it on a laptop when he communicated with foreign officials and ambassadors, unless the information qualified for a SCIF. (Clinton sent only one email to a foreign dignitary through her personal account, and her communications with ambassadors were, for the most part, by phone.)

So did Powell and the aides to Rice violate rules governing classified information, since the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) staff has recently determined that some of their years-old personal emails contain top-secret material? No. The rules regarding the handling of classified information apply to communications designated as secret at that time. If documents that aren’t deemed classified and aren’t handled through a SCIF when they are created or initially transmitted are later, in retrospect, deemed secret, the classification is new—and however the record was handled in the past is irrelevant.

There is also an enormous difference between a secretary of state sending an email to someone inside the department and that same email being released to the general public. Put simply, as anyone who has filed a request for a document under the FOIA knows, not every email or other item can be handed out, even if it was not originally deemed to be so confidential that it required SCIF procedures. The determination of what State Department documents can be publicly released is handled by the FOIA staff, both in the State Department and, when deemed appropriate, by officials with the same duties in the intelligence community. In fact, the entire issue right now regarding the emails of every secretary of state concerns which ones can be released under the FOIA. People outraged by the (false) belief that Powell and Rice’s aides broke the law are creating a fantasy world where every official email, no matter its content, must go through a SCIF just in case the FOIA staff eventually determines, sometime in the future and applying different standards, that the information in the email should not be released to the public under an FOIA request out of classification concerns. Given the cumbersome procedures of using a SCIF, that would mean the secretary of state would have to spend a lot of time sitting inside a locked box and sending emails not yet designated as containing secret information, solely to avoid the partisan gnashing of teeth that could potentially occur if someday the FOIA staff were to retroactively decide they should not be released to the public out of classification concerns.

Which brings us to the next most important issue here: classification. Members of Congress should—and probably do—know this, but the public apparently doesn’t. Just because the FOIA staff decides a document is top secret doesn’t mean it contains information of any import. (It’s widely known that, even on the creation of a document, the government over-classifies information, meaning communications are deemed secret that don’t need to be, but that’s another issue.) The FOIA staff is supposed to be extra-cautious when releasing a document to the public and err on the side of caution. As I mentioned in a previous column, that is why anyone wanting to obtain a document should file multiple FOIA requests for the information—one staffer might deem something secret that another staffer releases without concern. In fact, if someone were to submit an FOIA request for every email in the State Department that has been sent over a system without the extreme protections reserved for information determined top secret on creation, there is no doubt that the FOIA staff would call many of the emails classified and refuse the request.

Plus, both Powell and Rice had the authority, granted by President George W. Bush through executive order, to classify and declassify any document created by the State Department. So if either of them had received an email from another agency containing information that had not gone through a SCIF, he or she could have independently declared that it did not need to be secret and sent it along to anyone they chose.

In other words, just because the FOIA staff years later labeled emails sent from Powell and Rice’s aides as classified does not mean those records contain some crown jewels of critical intelligence. In fact, usually they are quite benign. I have seen emails called “top secret” that contained nothing more than a forwarded news article that had been published. (The Associated Press has reported that one of Clinton’s “secret” emails contains an AP article.)

Then there is the issue of servers. Where did Powell and Rice’s staff have their servers? Who knows, and who cares? Maybe they were private with special security and no public access. Or maybe they were just an AOL server. Whichever it was, they would be just as open to hacking as the State Department servers. In fact, the State Department general email system has been hacked multiple times, with terabytes of information improperly downloaded in 2006 alone. There has been no indication that the email accounts of either Powell or Rice’s staff were compromised.

Powell may have made one mistake in all this. He has said he never backed up his emails or printed them out; that was necessary to comply with some of the preservation rules detailed in the Federal Register. Of course, that doesn’t mean they can’t be recovered, since the FOIA staff is now reviewing his emails.

The bottom line: Democrats may try to turn the revelations about the email accounts used by Powell and Rice’s staff into a scandal. They may release press statements condemning the former secretaries of state; they may call for scores of unnecessary congressional hearings; they may go to the press and confidently proclaim that crimes were committed by these honorable Republicans. But it all be lies. Powell and Rice did nothing wrong. This could only be considered a scandal by ignorant or lying partisans.

So there is no Powell or Rice email scandal. And no doubt, that will infuriate the Republicans who are trying so hard to trick people into believing Clinton committed a crime by doing the exact same thing as her predecessors.


Source: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.newsweek.com/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-424187


I know, this involves an actual journalism organization, not an anonymous attack piece posted by the gybster.

Let's move on to Hillary's speaking to Wall Street. Of course, the right has never commented on the propriety of George W. Bush accepting large speaking fees in order to speak to groups of wounded veterans. Obviously he earned those fees by sending them into harms way. But Hillary, bought and paid for by Wall Street? Well....

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/when-hillary-clinton-gave-a-speech-to-goldman-sachs-the-topic-was-female-entrepreneurship/23763/

How un-American--she supported women becoming entrepreneurs.

Then there is the nonsense about Benghazi, where the bozos in the House can't find a crime, but keep spending money looking. And the Clinton charitable foundation, now with an A rating from Charity Navigator. And Whitewater, which must be a crime since the Clinton's lost money.

There is something seriously wrong with a religion that somehow has arrived at hating Muslim's and the Clinton's as family values.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are always folks who will tell the right wing the lies they want to believe. Sometimes they get caught:

Quote:
Published with permission from Media Matters for America.

Wayne Simmons, who presented himself as a national security expert and was a part of the conservative media push for a congressional investigation of the Benghazi attack, has pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges.

In an April 29 press release the Department of Justice noted that Simmons “falsely claimed he spent 27 years working for the Central Intelligence Agency” and had pleaded guilty “to major fraud against the government, wire fraud, and a firearms offense.”

The release further noted, “Simmons admitted he defrauded the government in 2008 when he obtained work as a team leader in the U.S. Army’s Human Terrain Systems program, and again in 2010 when he was deployed to Afghanistan as a senior intelligence advisor on the International Security Assistance Force’s Counterinsurgency Advisory and Assistance Team.”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14837
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
There are always folks who will tell the right wing the lies they want to believe. Sometimes they get caught:

Quote:
Published with permission from Media Matters for America.

Wayne Simmons, who presented himself as a national security expert and was a part of the conservative media push for a congressional investigation of the Benghazi attack, has pleaded guilty to federal fraud charges.

In an April 29 press release the Department of Justice noted that Simmons “falsely claimed he spent 27 years working for the Central Intelligence Agency” and had pleaded guilty “to major fraud against the government, wire fraud, and a firearms offense.”

The release further noted, “Simmons admitted he defrauded the government in 2008 when he obtained work as a team leader in the U.S. Army’s Human Terrain Systems program, and again in 2010 when he was deployed to Afghanistan as a senior intelligence advisor on the International Security Assistance Force’s Counterinsurgency Advisory and Assistance Team.”


think how many right wingers get away with their lies. There is no equivalent arrests or convictions on the liberal side for political cases like this. Nixon and reagan had so many criminals again no equivalent counterpart ever by liberals for political. Nixon goons/guys were discussing with the cia the best way to take out a reporter to look natural.

Even for non-political crimes like Enron, who was the largest contributor to the Bush campaign even flying all the Bush people on their jets for the election including for the florida recount. And no independent council appointed for that obvious influence.

Even for caught vote fraud issues, the right wingers set records, and no democratic independent investigation considering one of them was calling someone at a whitehouse number to date the Bush whitehouse would not say whos number it was for the phone jamming on election day of a dem headquarters.

Even for political lobbying right winger abramoff, he was about 80 million back when he went to jail.

even for crimes of theft of taxpayer money the right wing defence contractors in in the 100s of billions in taxpayer loss

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17742
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Pentagon says it is a waste of time, and the Rep's listen to talk radio instead of reading documents:

Quote:
The Pentagon is pushing back against the House Benghazi Committee, saying its repeated requests for documents and interviews are straining the department's resources — and, to make matters worse, many of the queries are speculative or hypothetical.

Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephen Hedger complained in a letter to the committee on Thursday about its continued demands for information, and implied that the panel is grasping to make assertions based on theory rather than facts.

“[W]hile I understand your stated intent is to conduct the most comprehensive review of the attack and response, Congress has as much of an obligation as the executive branch to use federal resources and taxpayer dollars effectively and efficiently,” the letter reads. “The Department has spent millions of dollars on Benghazi-specific Congressional compliance, including reviews by four other committees, which have diligently reviewed the military’s response in particular.”
Hedger also complained that Defense Department interviewees “have been asked repeatedly to speculate or engage in discussing on the record hypotheticals.”
“This type of questioning poses the risk that your final report may be based on speculation rather than a fact-based analysis of what a military officer did do or could have done given his or her knowledge at the time of the attacks,” he wrote.
Panel Republicans waved off the letter, saying it is “further proof the Benghazi Committee is conducting a thorough, fact-centered investigation.”
Republicans have been seeking audiences with a number of Pentagon officials, including some who flew drones over Libya the night of the attack. But they've faced pushback from the Defense Department. They threatened Defense Department with subpoenas in hopes of getting swifter answers.
“It’s unfortunate it took the threat of subpoenas for the Pentagon to make witnesses available earlier this year,” said a committee spokesperson. “This delayed the committee from learning a tremendous amount of new information from several witnesses, and when they refer the committee to others in the department, the responsible thing to do is to interview them. What is DOD so afraid of? Why are they supposedly unable to find their own employees?”
Hedger blasted the subpoena threats in his letter, saying the Pentagon is “concerned by the continuous threats from your staff to subpoena witnesses because we are not able to move quickly enough.”

The letter details the Pentagon's reluctance to fill a series of new requests that officials believe are unnecessary. Officials are asking the panel for a meeting to discuss them.

In one example cited by the letter, the committee is seeking an audience with a man who posted on Facebook that he was a mechanic on an air base in Europe the night of the attack. He claimed that planes could have been deployed.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/benghazi-committee-pentagon-criticism-222640#ixzz47LT55IkB
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588

PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Panel Democrats, meanwhile, pounced on the letter as further proof that the committee is wasting taxpayer dollars. They said a number of Defense Department officials whom the committee has recently asked to interview, including General Carter Ham, former second commander of U.S. Africa Command, have already been questioned by other congressional panels looking into the Benghazi attacks.

“The Department of Defense has a critical job to do, which is to keep our nation safe from those who would do us harm. But Republicans continue to squander millions of taxpayer dollars chasing right-wing conspiracy theories and forcing Pentagon officials to waste their time on this partisan fishing expedition,” said Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the committee's ranking member."


I'm with Rep. Cummings on this. I don't envy him having to hang around and be a part of the whole House Republican Benghazi fiasco. Fishing endlessly in vain, willfully spending taxpayer dollars for something meaningful to try to justify their biased charade. What a joke! Leave it to Republicans to demand the kind of government nonsense that no one really wants or needs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14837
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

it is what Benganzi right wing investigation 6,7,or 8?

again more investigations than WW1 WW2, pearl harbor, Nixon, only Hillary Clinton has been investigated by right wing partisan haters more than any other event in US history.

Well the next one is out and again they found nothing and had no earthshaking relavation to keep america safe.


One thing that was released this time which show you right wingers to be such cowards is, you have alleged they should never have been there and security was so deficient. Well it turns out she herself was going there the next month was part of the preparations going on. You right wing chickenhawks... Obviously she was not aware that it was so negligent as you have accused her.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/house-republicans-report-sheds-new-light-benghazi-attack-n600121

Quote:
Witnesses told the committee Stevens was laying the groundwork for a visit by Clinton just one month later — in October 2012 — and "the hope was to establish a permanent consulate in Benghazi for the Secretary to present to the Libyan government during her trip."

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9293

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another useful idiot towing the globalist line. Globalism supported by both Bush and Clinton have destroyed our manufacturing base..... But you keep towing the line from your Baja bunker.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mat-ty



Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 7850

PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 4:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bad news moron, the damage is done and most Americans know the truth.
Lack of cooperation , stonewalling , and flat out lies from this corrupt administration led to a lengthy investigation, and we learned plenty!!

They lied to America, they lied to the family's, they left our bravest to fend for themselves. Thankfully they are alive and well and more than happy to tell the real story.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 108, 109, 110 ... 122, 123, 124  Next
Page 109 of 124

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group