Hillary Clinton Violates Federal Records Law

The New York Times (of all places) is reporting tonight that Hillary Clinton used only private email accounts for her communication while she was secretary of state.  That practice is a violation of the federal law on the subject.  All communications are supposed to be retained by the government for future reference.  Instead, Mrs. Clinton kept her own records and is only now "reviewing" her emails to see which need to go to the government.  Put another way, Hillary hid her correspondence while secretary of state and is now trying to keep control of what is put in the official records.

This whole thing will play out over the next few weeks as more facts come out, but I have some initial reactions:

1.  Remember back a few years when Sarah Palin made use of a personal email account while she was governor of Alaska?  The media went into a frenzy and reported her having a personal email account as if it was a major crime.  Want to bet that we do not see that sort of attack on Hillary?

2.  When the state department ARB investigation of the Benghazi attack and its aftermath took place, none of the members of that board interviewed Mrs. Clinton.  We were told that the board members had access to all the state department records, however.  Of course, if all of Hillary's email was in her personal account rather than a state department account, the ARB members couldn't have seen much of anything.  Simply put, there is no way that the ARB could possibly have cleared Hillary without even seeing her communications.

3.  The idea that the secretary of state ought to use government email for communications is not something unusual.  Every member of the cabinet knows the rule.  Indeed, all government officials know the rule.  Only someone like Hillary who thinks she is above the law would avoid compliance.

This is just one more indication that Hillary Clinton is not ready to be president.

 

Where Did Putin Get This One

Two days ago, Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov was murdered in Moscow just outside the Kremlin.  The murder was a professional hit with all the surveillance cameras being blocked by a large truck and with Nemtsov's companion being unharmed by the assailants.  The murder also came the day before a rally at which Nemtsov had promised to disclose Russia's direct involvement in the fighting in Ukraine, facts that would be directly contrary to the claims made by president Putin of Russia.

In a rather dishonest move, the Putin government is blaming the murder on anti-government forces (with some talk that alternatively, it might have been the CIA).  Clearly, this was a hit ordered by Putin or those around him.  Even more dishonest, though, is the promise today by Putin that there would be a complete investigation of the murder to find and punish those responsible. 

I have to say that Putin's tactics of announcing an investigation reminded me of similar tactics used by president Obama.  When the IRS targeting of conservatives and Christian groups was disclosed, Obama promised an investigation.  None has ever taken place.  Instead, months later, Obama just said that the admitted wrongdoing by the IRS was a phony scandal.  Remember Fast and Furious in which the Justice Department sent 2000 assault weapons to the Mexican drug cartels?  There was going to be a detailed investigation into that mess.  If you forget the results of that investigation, that is because there never has been any results.  How about all the cash that former secretary of HHS Sibelius solicited from companies that made millions out of Obamacare?  Remember the investigation into that one?  Of course not!  No investigation ever took place.  How about the administration investigation of what happened at Benghazi?  Congress has investigated, but the Obama administration never did.  There are many more promised investigations that never materialized.  All we ever see is stalling until the story dies down.

It's hard to criticize Putin's tactics when our own president does the same thing all the time.

It's Time For Obama To Declare Victory

Over the last few years, one of the funnier aspects of president Obama's public pronouncements has been his claim that he has increased American oil and gas production.  The truth is that Obama has done all he can to try to limit US production of these fuels.  Obama has managed to cut production on federal lands by over 20%.  At the same time, the revolution in drilling brought about by horizontal drilling and hydrofracking has increased production of these products on private land where Obama has no control.  The huge increase on private land has outstripped the decrease Obama caused on the federal land.  So, despite fighting to limit oil and gas production, Obama has nevertheless taken credit for the surge in production in locations beyond his control.

It may be time for Obama to adopt the same strategy with regard to global warming.  Through his entire presidency, Obama has struggled to limit the coal industry, to increase production of "green energy" and to otherwise limit emission of carbon dioxide.  His efforts have mostly failed.  Indeed, the push for green energy has been more of a payoff for Obama's big bucks donors than anything having to do with global warming.  But here's the rub:  for the last 17+ years, there has been no warming of the atmosphere as precisely measured by satellites.  So Obama's efforts have failed, but there has been no warming.  Wouldn't it be better for both Obama and America if the president switched to taking credit for the end of warming while stopping his moves that harm the economy in the name of overboard environmentalism?  If we can get Obama to stop putting up roadblocks to growth, we all benefit. 

 

The Moron Speaks

The secretary of state of the United States of America is a moron.  Sadly, that point is beyond dispute.  We all dodged a bullet when Kerry lost his race for the White House in 2004.  Now, however, we have this idiot out there saying things that are beyond belief.  Last week he criticized the judgment of Bibi Netanyahu for having supported the Iraq War despite Kerry having voted for that war himself and having strongly supported it during the 2004 campaign.  This morning, he came out with another of his bon mots.  Speaking in Europe (he does love to be there, doesn't he), Kerry warned Netanyahu not to release any details of the proposed agreement with Iran when he speaks to Congress tomorrow.  Maybe Kerry has not yet learned how to read.  The media has been filled with all sorts of details of the proposed agreement.  These details have come, for the most part, from Kerry's own state department on "background".  The Iranians have also given out details.  We know that the current proposal is for Iran to agree to "limit" enrichment of uranium over the next ten years and then to have no limits on that process at all.  Iran also promises not to actually build a nuke.  In exchange for that promise, all sanctions will be lifted.  In other words, the USA completely folds.  We started by aiming to prevent any enrichment of uranium by Iran.  That is because enrichment is only needed if one wants to build a bomb.  Nearly a year ago, Obama softened the stand so that Iran would be able to enrich a "token" amount of uranium.  Now, Obama/Kerry are proposing to let Iran keep 6500 centrifuges operating, a number which would let Iran produce enough material for a nuclear weapon every 9 months or so.

I am not a participant in the talks with Iran, but I got all these details just from reading news articles whose sources are in the Obama administration.  But Kerry says that if Netanyahu mentions these details it will undermine the talks!  I guess I have to end as I began:

The secretary of state of the United States of America is a moron.

 

The WaPo Tries to "Prepare the Ground"

There is a lengthy discussion in today's Washington Post of the likely effect of the King v. Burwell case on the Supreme Court's claim to be non-partisan.  Not surprisingly, the WaPo reports that should the Supreme Court rule that the Obamacare statute must be interpreted in line with its clear language, the Court would be partisan, and if the Supreme Court rules that the language does not matter it would be non-partisan.  Maybe a clearer way to say that is this:  According to the WaPo, if the Supreme Court rules for the Obama/Democrat position, it is non-partisan, but if it rules for the Republican position, it is partisan. 

This article is just an attempt by another leading member of the mainstream media to stack the deck in favor of the Obama position.  All of the justices live in DC, so the WaPo is their local paper.  Most likely, they all read it.  Since they all would like to be considered non-partisan, the justices cannot help but be affected, even if slightly, by inanities like this WaPo article.

I don't think it is going to help.  The language of the statute is extremely clear.  I cannot believe that the justices will decide that words do not matter.  It is not a partisan issue.  It is a straight forward issue of statutory interpretation.  The rules for that are clear.  To change the language of the statute will require action by Congress.  Neither the president nor the IRS have the power to alter that.

 

Senator Feinstein Should Know Better

When President Obama goes abroad and gives a speech, does he speak on behalf of all Americans?  Certainly!  He is the head of our government, and his words are spoken on our behalf.  Does that mean we all agree with what he says?  No, certainly not!  This is not a difficult idea to comprehend, but somehow senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) can't seem to get her brain around it.  Let me explain.

Israeli prime minister Netanyahu is coming to speak this week before Congress.  Prior to leaving Israel on his journey, Netanyahu said this:

“My responsibility is to worry not only about the State of Israel, but also the future of the Jewish people.  And for that reason, we are strongly opposed to the agreement being formulated between the world powers and Iran that could endanger Israel’s very existence.”

This morning senator Feinstein called that statement by Netanyahu "arrogant".  Most amazing is not her characterization of what Netanyahu said, but her reasoning (or lack of reasoning.)  Here is how DiFi put it:

"He doesn’t speak for me on this.  I think it’s a rather arrogant statement. I think the Jewish community is like any other community. There are different points of view. I think that arrogance does not befit, Israel, candidly."

So in the weird world view of Diane Feinstein, it's arrogant for the head of the world's only Jewish state to take a position on an issue of grave importance to that state unless all the world's Jews agree.  Has she lost her mind?  It certainly appears so.  Just imagine DiFi's response to Republican criticism of president Obama if the GOP said it was arrogant for Obama to take a public position on an issue on behalf of the USA unless all Americans agreed with him.

I guess neither logic nor consistency is DiFi's strong suit.  Maybe she's just showing her age.

Unfair to Amateurs

A week and a half ago, I posted about the background briefing given at the White House in which a detailed timetable and battle plan for the upcoming attack to retake the city of Mosul from ISIS was provided to the media.  It was mind blowing to think that the White House would alert ISIS to the details of the military plans for the attack.  Well now, all that has changed.

The White House has now told the media that the plans for the attack on Mosul have been delayed.  In fact, reporters have gotten confirmation from the Kurds that they had never signed on to that attack even though the Obama background spokesman had said that three brigades of Kurdish peshmerga fighters would attack the city from the north.  Indeed, the Kurds told the media that they had never even been consulted about the plan for an attack.

It was horrifying to think that the White House would put so many soldiers in danger by giving the enemy advance warning of the timing and details of the attack.  It is even worse to think that the White House is so clueless about these matters that it would put out a story of battle plans without even speaking to the forces that are supposed to carry out that attack.

I would call the Obamacrats in the White House "amateurs", but that would be unfair to amateurs everywhere.  The Obamacrats are really better described as clowns.