[Judicial Watch] Besides exclusively using a secret email account to conduct official government business, it's likely that Hillary Clinton also used unauthorized electronic equipment--an iPad and an iPhone--as Secretary of State after being warned not to, a veteran State Department official told Judicial Watch this week.
On at least half a dozen occasions Clinton's top aides asked the State Department's Office of Security Technology to approve the use of an iPad and iPhone, according to JW's inside source. Each time the request was rejected for security reasons, the source confirms. The only mobile device that meets the agency's security standards is the BlackBerry, JW's source said, adding that the Office of Security Technology--Bureau of Diplomatic Security's Directorate of Countermeasures must approve all equipment such as cameras, phones and communication devices for all officials.
Evidently set on using the popular Apple devices, Clinton repeatedly challenged the ban and asked management in the Office of Security Technology to allow their use. The executive secretariat responsible for all communications and information technology always rejected the requests, JW's source affirms. "From day one Hillary was trying to get the iPhone and the iPad approved," the State Department official told JW. "She kept trying and trying to get us to approve the iPhone and the iPad, but we wouldn't do it. Technology security experts tested the iPhone and the iPad several times because she constantly wanted them approved, but it never happened."
The longtime State Department employee reveals that it's common knowledge among government security tech experts that Apple devices don't meet strict security standards so agency insiders were puzzled that the Secretary of State was hell-bent on using them. "There was a lot of head-scratching," JW's source revealed. Every State Department employee goes through a rigorous security training that includes strict warnings about using non approved equipment or personal email like Clinton did throughout her tenure as the president's chief foreign affairs officer, the agency insider said. Once again, all part of her clandestine communications programmme.
#1
I suspect that back in 2009 when she established the email account she had a Blackberry and no i Phone.
At some point she got an i Phone as well based on her own answer to an interview question.
Frankly, doing both biz and personal on the same device is a prescription for disaster. It is very, very easy to inadvertently past biz stuff into a personal email and visa versa. You have to be constantly on guard for that. I expect people younger than, say, 40, can probably do that but people Hil's age - not so much.
Posted by: lord garth ||
03/10/2015 21:47 Comments ||
Top||
[National Review] During a press conference on her exclusive use of a private e-mail account and server during her tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton said she "chose not to keep" her private emails -- suggesting she deleted thousands of her e-mails and raising questions about how she decided which to delete and which to turn over. While explaining that she opted for a private account and server as a "convenience," Clinton said she had accrued about 60,000 e-mails on that server -- half government-related and half of a personal nature. "We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related e-mails and deliver them to the State Department," she said at the U.N. on Tuesday.
"At the end, I chose not to keep my private, personal e-mails -- e-mails about planning Chelsea's wedding, or my mother's funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends." "No one wants their personal e-mails made public," she added. "And I think most people understand that and respect that privacy." Clinton later muddied the waters, claiming some personal e-mails were on her private computer server -- which, she added, would remain private.
#1
High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
I see at least 4 qualifying elements.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors:
The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.
#2
IMO she forfeited the right to keep her personal e-mails private when she chose to violate policy and keep her government e-mails off the government server. If she had done it the way I understand people in positions like hers are supposed to, her personal data would have been mixed in with the government stuff and she could reasonably have some oversight people sort them to be held private from FOI requests, etc.
BERBERA, Somalia(land) -- Somaliland police forces have arrested two TV journalists for allegedly violating local authority conditions in Berbera coastal town on Sunday, Garowe Online reports. The two-Abdirahman Mohamed Ige of Royal TV and Mubarak Osman Saed of Star TV-were detained for betraying Somaliland nation according Saahil governor Fahmi Abdi.
“The two have been arrested, if you want to find out the reason, you can read their crimes from the websites. They conspired against Somaliland nation,” said Abdi when asked about the reasons besetting the arrest of the media workers.
Nearly 20 journalists were arbitrarily detained by Somaliland authorities over the last two years. Two-third of the arrests targeted TV journalists working for UK-based Somali channels in Lasanod.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/10/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
The Dutch justice minister and his state secretary resigned on Monday after acknowledging they misled parliament about the facts surrounding a settlement with a drug kingpin in 2001. Aren't you green with envy? Own up.
Yes. Though it did take them a full baker's dozen of years to get around to it, and I have to wonder what changed to precipitate this action.
[Iran Press TV] US President Barack Obama I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go... has lashed out at Republican senators for undermining his administration's efforts in nuclear negotiations with Iran. When has he ever NOT 'lashed out' at pubs?
"I think it's somewhat ironic to see some members for Congress wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran. It's an unusual coalition," Obama said Monday.
The US president made the comments during a meeting with European Council President Donald Tusk.
On Monday, a group of 47 Republican senators wrote an open letter to Iran, warning that the outcome of the nuclear talks would not be acceptable without Congress approval and could be revoked when Obama leaves the White House in 2017.
In which Weekly Standard piece the Senators' letter can be read.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/10/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
"I think it's somewhat ironic to see some members for Congress Ted Kennedy wanting to make common cause with the hardliners Yuri Andropov in Iran the Soviet Union. It's an unusual coalition."
#4
I understand that raj but with this issue overwhelmingly in our favor this letter creates a ridiculous distraction. Send the letter to Obama or run it in the nyt or wapo. Keep pushing on having the senate ok any deal. Instead of talking about the expected crappy deal, the focus will be on the shiny new distraction.
#5
dk - I think regardless of the manner in which that letter is sent out, it will be called a distraction by Obama and the buttboy national media. I'd rather have some level of resistance by the supposedly opposition party instead of them constantly caving on funding all of Obama's schemes to trash this country.
#8
I seldom agree with Zero, but I don't think it appropriate for Senators to intervene in foreign affairs negotiations, and even less as a group than as individuals. Better they should do what they are supposed to - debate on the Senate floor and cut off funding.
#10
It is and always has been common that the Senate is involved with major FP negotiations. Usually the President follows the law and knows that the Senate must ratify any treaty so it behooves him to line up the proper support, negotiating to insure that the treaty the president sends to Congress will be accepted.
L'etat cest moi, of our current regime doesn't believe in limited, check and balance gov't, common feeling among Dems, forced the 'pubs hand in the same way that Clintoon did with his Kyoto treaty. The Senate then was quite clear that no way no how was that being approved.
Dictator wannabes get shot down in different ways depending on the details.
#13
Yeah, and I remember the Black Caucus visiting Cuba shortly after Obama got elected back in April, 2009 and calling for a lifting of the embargo and stating what a nice guy Fidel was. Then again, a letter was sent to SOS Hillary by 76 Senators in 2010 criticizing the Obama administration for a confrontational stance towards long-standing ally Israel. Donks get over your feigned self-righteous indignation you hypocrites.
Congress could have demanded that the Constitution be adhered to by requiring the Senate to ratify Obama's treaty (or some call it capitulation; others call it the "look for a mushroom cloud over Israel or America" treaty) with Iran.
I only wish my Senators (Corker and Alexander) had signed the letter. Who they playing ball with?
#14
I seldom agree with Zero, but I don't think it appropriate for Senators to intervene in foreign affairs negotiations, and even less as a group than as individuals
Well, they do get to approve treaties; an executive action with regards to a nuclear agreement with Iran does not rise to an enforceable treaty.
For history, see the U.S. agreement with South Viet Nam and Congress' reaction to later events. Hint: it wasn't a treaty.
#15
A competent President conducting diplomacy with integrity and with our (and our allies') best interests in mind would consult with the Legislature and our allies. Instead, we get a narcissist ic sociopath with an Anti-Israel and Anti-American streak looking for a Legacy™ at any cost.
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/10/2015 11:38 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Pappy, that's pretty much what the letter said.
That unless the Senate approves the executive action is only applicable while the executive is in office. After that all bets are off, and btw the Congress can pass laws regarding anything in the agreement that negates the effect.
#17
Better they should do what they are supposed to - debate on the Senate floor and cut off funding.
Well, they're no damned good at that so they might as well send a letter. If it pisses off Obama and the Iranians I'm all for it. You certainly can't trust Obama to come up with a good deal. He never has before.
#20
When all is said and done what is the point of telling Iran that most anything that would be agreed to by Obama (and ignored by Iran) will be reversed. Let them both waste their time.
#21
The Dems did it too is not a good excuse. I hold the Republicans to a higher standard. Voicing their displeasure is ok. Sending letters to Iran was dumb. The Senate should have used their powers in the process and and taken the "Proposed treaty" to the floor for a vote, like our constitutional process calls for. The real issue here is McConnell is just playing politics and his intentions was, is, and always will be for the betterment of Mitch McConnell, not the American people. Note his railing on illegal aliens and his capitulation in the end. All this drama is nothing more than drama in DC, with no real desire from either side to do do anything responsible.
All the while our enemies grow stronger and more lethal.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
03/10/2015 15:20 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Let them both waste their time.
But they aren't just wasting time, rjschwarz. They're together running out the clock until iran gets its functioning nuclear weapons, keeping Israel from doing anything effective to stop it in the meantime. Iran doesn't actually care if an agreement is reached, so long as the effort is not actually stopped. Even an increase in sanctions is acceptable as an interim step -- it'll really only harm the common people, and what care the Mullahs for such as they?
#24
The Dems did it too is not a good excuse. I hold the Republicans to a higher standard.
And that is one of the reasons you lost the republic. For the Donks its all about power. They only go through with the rituals and formalities to keep the masses in line and to fork over their sons and daughters to keep them in power. Till the fight is over, you use everything you got to win.
At the start of WWII most nations denounced the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations and torpedoing of unarmed merchant ships. By the end, everyone was doing it. It's what you do with the power after you win that matters. Use the standards the other side has employed against them.
#25
681 days; 7 hours; 57 minutes; and 12 seconds til he's gone
Posted by: Total War ||
03/10/2015 17:08 Comments ||
Top||
#26
^^^^ I still don't think I will make it. During his trip to Atlanta today I had to watch this fool land and them licking his ass during lunch. At 36 I thought I was having my first heart attack.
Posted by: chris ||
03/10/2015 22:01 Comments ||
Top||
#27
It was not necessary to draft this. It is good you show support for Israel but drafting resolutions means more.
It is not illegal, but it is a poisoned atmosphere.
The Iranians were aware by what was transmitted via twitter.
Do not play democrat games if you may avoid it. I know your Hearts were in the right place but take a look about... you do not need to be in the news cycle this way. The hillary hemorrhage has just begun so be quiet and handcuff as much stupid legislation as possible.
[Iran Press TV] State Senator Michael Willette has made an apology after sending an online post saying that US President Barack Obama It’s very rare that I come to an event where I’m like the fifth- or sixth-most interesting person.... is part of the ISIL terrorist group.
The Maine state senator was criticized for sharing a photo of Obama on his Facebook earlier this month.
"Why haven't I done anything about ISIS (ISIL)? Because I'll deal with them at the family reunion," according to the caption of the photo.
On Monday, the Maine Republican apologized for sharing the post and called it an "error in judgment."
"I apologize for posting this on Facebook. Like too many people these days, I fell into the trap of posting something first and then thinking later. It was an error in judgment," Willette said.
Maine Democratic Party Chairman Phil Bartlett expressed his disappointment over the post.
He urged the Maine Republican Party to condemn the action.
"His post is offensive and perpetuates a false religious and ethnic slur at a time when our state and country should come together," Bartlett said.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/10/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Seems you can't even have an opinion anymore. I would love to see someone make a statement like this and refuse to apologize. Ya know kinda like shithead destroying the country and not givin 1 damn.
Posted by: chris ||
03/10/2015 0:38 Comments ||
Top||
#6
There is a difference and the Senator should have corrected his statement to Obama is an ISIL supporter, not member. Like the three sixteen year old girls in England...
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
03/10/2015 15:23 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I thought Barry was more a MB supporter.
Still seems a bit peeved his man Morsi isn't running Egypt.
#3
Marie Harf’s unhappy at media for fact checking her BS? Just think how the fact checkers feel about having to wade through all this crap--Harfpooned over and over again like in "Groundhog's Day".
#6
Listened to Ms. Clinton's presser this afternoon. 1. No, we will not have access to the server.
2. Yes, she (or her staff) decided which e-mails to provide to State.
3. It is burdensome to carry "2 devices."
Wonder if she has heard about that signing-out and signing-in thingy to switch between e-mail accounts. I do it numerous times daily, but I'm not very smart.
[Israel Matzav] On Monday, nearly 50 Republican Senators sent a letter to Iran, informing that country's regime that once President Obama leaves office in January 2017, no President who succeeds him will continue to abide by any agreement that he enters into with Iran, unless that agreement first passes the Congress (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
"It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system ... Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement," the senators wrote. "The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time."
Many inside the Republican caucus, however, hope that by pointing out the long-term fragility of a deal with no congressional approval -- something Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has also noted -- the Iranian regime might be convinced to think twice. "Iran's ayatollahs need to know before agreeing to any nuclear deal that ... any unilateral executive agreement is one they accept at their own peril," Cotton told me.
The new letter is the latest piece of an effort by Senators in both parties to ensure that Congress will have some say if and when a deal is signed. Senators Bob Corker, Lindsey Graham, Tim Kaine and the embattled Bob Menendez have a bill pending that would mandate a Congressional review of the Iran deal, but Republicans and Democrats have been bickering over how to proceed in the face of a threatened presidential veto.
The White House reacted furiously, arguing that the bill 'undermines' the President's ability 'to conduct foreign policy.' No kidding. Wasn't that the whole point of the letter (Hat Tip: Memeorandum)?
White House press secretary Josh Earnest was unusually blunt in ripping the Senate GOP, saying "it's surprising to me there are some Republican senators who are seeking to establish a backchannel with hardliners in Iran to undermine an agreement with Iran and the international community."
Earnest said Republicans have a "long and rather sordid history" of putting military options ahead of diplomatic ones, and called the letter, signed by 47 GOP lawmakers, "the continuation of a partisan strategy to undermine the president's authority."
Posted by: Hupineger Glomomp52169 ||
03/10/2015 08:40 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[12 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Two names for the Dems to consider:
Ted Kennedy, Yuri Andropov.
I've got others but that should do. (I know it won't, but, what the heck)
#2
I guess he doesn't know about the Democrat senators visiting Ortega when Reagan was president and has forgotten Pelosi visiting Assad after Bush asked her not to.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
03/10/2015 12:35 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Zero is more annoying than an ingrown toe nail, and about as painful. What will the US population do when they find out that his whole life has been fabricated and influenced by foreign interests unfriendly to the USA ?
#5
Sounds like all the Republicans did was to state the obvious which is that no way in hell can the Champ get them to ratify his little agreement as a binding and long lasting treaty so, once again, he is attempting to make an end run around them. But it's no surprise that liars like him are uncomfortable with the truth. The only surprise is that these nearly but not quite 50 senators had the guts to tell it like it is.
#7
Sounds like all the Republicans did was to state the obvious which is that no way in hell can the Champ get them to ratify his little agreement as a binding and long lasting treaty so, once again, he is attempting to make an end run around them.
To be more accurate, it's "no way in hell can you call it a treaty, and thus call it 'enforceable', if Congress doesn't sign off on it. And we aren't going to sign off on it unless we know what's in it beforehand - not when it shows up on our desks."
#8
It's dead the day another executive takes office.
Thank Obama for drawing the stark line for any intelligent Trunk (yeah, sort of an oxymoron there) candidate to split the Jewish (and funding) base between the world socialists first and all the rest.
#9
Obama: 'Once I sign the agreement, you can read the agreement' The last time the Congress bought a "pig in the poke," it got us in a lot of trouble which is still on-going (ahem, cough, Obamacare).
#10
It would seem to me that an agreement with a foreign government is, in fact (if not in law) a treaty, and would not be binding without ratification by the Senate. And that treaties are intended to be gnereated with the advice as well as consent of the Senate - and the President is explicitly refusing to incorporate any advice.
[National Journal] "Follow the money." That apocryphal phrase, attributed to Watergate whistle-blower "Deep Throat," explains why the biggest threat to Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential dreams is not her emails. It's her family foundation. That's where the money is: corporate money, foreign money, gobs of money sloshing around a vanity charity that could be renamed "Clinton Conflicts of Interest Foundation." We certainly know she's not concerned about sex, so that only leaves....money.
What about the emails? Hillary Clinton's secret communications cache is a bombshell deserving of full disclosure because of her assault on government transparency and electronic security. But its greatest relevancy is what the emails might reveal about any nexus between Clinton's work at State and donations to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation from U.S. corporations and foreign nations.
#3
Step 1: Hils puts sensitive state department communications on an unsecured server, thus making them available to any foreign intelligence service smarter than a sack of hammers.
Step 2: "Foreign donors" flood the Clinton slush fund with $$$.
Posted by: Matt ||
03/10/2015 9:14 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Given that any foreign intelligence service worth its salt has probably hacked Hillary ' s private server, they should have enough on her that the Clinton Foundation should have to pay them, just to keep the stuff private.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
03/10/2015 9:56 Comments ||
Top||
#5
According to Judicial Watch:
The State Department lawfully must provide these documents, or a justification for withholding them, to Judicial Watch within 20 working days, or be subject to federal lawsuits under FOIA.
These six new FOIA requests are in addition to requests filed last week directly seeking Mrs. Clinton’s emails.
There are 18 lawsuits, ten of which are active in federal court, as well as about 160 Judicial Watch FOIA requests that could be affected by Mrs. Clinton and her staff’s use of secret email accounts to conduct official government business. In Judicial Watch’s various FOIA lawsuits, lawyers for Judicial Watch have informed attorneys for the Obama administration that Hillary Clinton’s and any other secret accounts used by State employees should be secured, recovered, and searched. Judicial Watch.
#6
Given that any foreign intelligence service worth its salt
Which would certainly include Israel - I wonder what they get and from whom for keeping it secret?
#8
She said she used the server set up during her husband's administration (1993-2001). Bill Clinton's statement on the use of email in 2011 at a conference was: “I sent a grand total of two emails as president, one to our troops in the Adriatic, and one to John Glenn when he was 77 years old in outer space. I figured it was OK if Congress subpoenaed those.”
You have to wonder how technically up-to-date and secure the server was since it was of 15-20 year vintage.
#9
Small wonder Putin is doing so well to set all this current stuff up - he probably had full access to State Dept plans, which have overridden out military's plans repeatedly under Obama.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Judicial Watch] Besides exclusively using a secret email account to conduct official government business, it's likely that Hillary Clinton also used unauthorized electronic equipment--an iPad and an iPhone--as Secretary of State after being warned not to, a veteran State Department official told Judicial Watch this week.
[Iran Press TV] US President 
[Israel Matzav] On Monday, nearly 50 Republican Senators sent a letter to Iran, informing that country's regime that once President Obama leaves office in January 2017, no President who succeeds him will continue to abide by any agreement that he enters into with Iran, unless that agreement first passes the Congress (Hat Tip: Memeorandum). 
[National Journal] "Follow the money." That apocryphal phrase, attributed to Watergate whistle-blower "Deep Throat," explains why the biggest threat to Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential dreams is not her emails. It's her family foundation. That's where the money is: corporate money, foreign money, gobs of money sloshing around a vanity charity that could be renamed "Clinton Conflicts of Interest Foundation."
