Author Topic: Hillary's Closest Aide Admits Clinton 'Illegally' Burned Daily Schedule  (Read 5139 times)

babyjesus

  • Known & Noted
  • **
  • Posts: 1055
  • SPAG
    • View Profile
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-04/hillarys-closest-aide-admits-clinton-illegally-burned-daily-schedule

Quote
In a deposition last week, NYPost reports that Hillary Clinton's cloests aide - Huma Abedin - revelaed that her boss destroyed at least some of her schedules as secretary of state — a revelation that could complicate matters for the presumptive Democratic nominee, who, along with the State Department she ran, is facing numerous lawsuits seeking those public records.

    “I spent eight years at the State Department and watched as four US ambassadors and two secretaries of state shared their daily schedules with a variety of State Department employees and US officials,” said Richard Grenell, former diplomat and US spokesman at the United Nations.

    “I’ve never seen anyone put their schedule in the burn bag — because every one of them had a state.gov email address and therefore their daily schedules became public records, as required by law.”

Laws are for little people.

If the President does it then it is legal. (~GWB)

Obama likes to drone brownies weddings and he's not beyond ordering hits on US citizens abroad.

Cheney just fucking likes to torture folks, and he keeps the film.

Hillary and her famous husband just like to do whatever the fuck enriches them no matter whether it is legal.

Quote
U.N. Official 'Accidentally' Crushes Own Throat Right Before Testifying Against Hillary Clinton
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-02/un-official-accidentally-crushes-own-throat-right-testifying-against-hillary-clinton

and according to some sources the Clintons have left a trail of dead bodies behind as they bury the evidence. Those sources seem somewhat credible, but hey, today evidence of anything can be created from scratch.

Anywho, the point is the Clintons are DIRTY, DIRTY, DIRTY as sin and everybody knows it.

But is destroying her public records (the evidence) important enough to warrant sending her ass to jail (like they threatened to do with Pataeus for the same offenses)?

Is exposing herself and her official work to foreign powers important enough to send her ass to jail?

Quote
FBI Set to Ask Russian President Putin For His Copies of Hillary’s Hacked Emails
https://saboteur365.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/fbi-set-to-ask-russian-president-putin-for-his-copies-of-hillarys-hacked-emails/

These are questions for bigger, better, more muscular minds than my own, granted.

But these questions strike at the heart of our current evolution toward a lawless society, or at least a society in which laws are suspended selectively because national security, he/she is the president, too big to jail.

Maybe my facts are all wrong, maybe I am being hot headed and rushing to judgement.

Or maybe this is kinda the way it has always been, but now nobody bothers to hide it no mo.

This too will trickle down.

Vanadium Gryllz

  • Outlandish
  • ***
  • Posts: 4450
    • View Profile

Or maybe this is kinda the way it has always been, but now nobody bothers to hide it no mo.


This seems like the most likely explanation to me.

Breaking news: Humans are shady fuckers and those with the most power probably abuse it in any way which takes their fancy.

We just hear about it more because of the greater communication afforded to us.

It's hard to separate the signal from the noise though.
"I was fine until my skin came off.  I'm never going to South Attelboro again."

babyjesus

  • Known & Noted
  • **
  • Posts: 1055
  • SPAG
    • View Profile

Or maybe this is kinda the way it has always been, but now nobody bothers to hide it no mo.


This seems like the most likely explanation to me.

Breaking news: Humans are shady fuckers and those with the most power probably abuse it in any way which takes their fancy.

We just hear about it more because of the greater communication afforded to us.


It's hard to separate the signal from the noise though.

This is no trivial point. Because the appearance of a two tier, or a selective application of law undermines the entire principle of and, more to the point, the justification for rule of law.

And that message does trickle down corrupting society at large.

It gets stuck in the minds of children who grow up knowing that law is just the man with a gun and a fast car who legally robs people roadside just because.

It undermines the foundations of civil society.

But maybe that's a good thing.

Junkenstein

  • Technically-Oriented & Horribly Mobile Crecy of Crab Lice.
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 114864
    • View Profile
Those news sources look somewhat questionable.

So what's the driving point here? Clinton's bad so.....? What? Trump and his wall? Write in Bernie?


Also, Hi new guy. How's life?

Nine naked Men just walking down the road will cause a heap of trouble for all concerned.

babyjesus

  • Known & Noted
  • **
  • Posts: 1055
  • SPAG
    • View Profile
Those news sources look somewhat questionable.

So what's the driving point here? Clinton's bad so.....? What? Trump and his wall? Write in Bernie?


Also, Hi new guy. How's life?

Hey you too.

It ain't about Berning Man or the Donald.

It is about whether or not it is important that our leading elected officials be subject to laws at all. And fwiw 2 of those three sources were zerohedge, pretty reputable by web standards. You should maybe check them out, esp if you study the economy.

It is about whether or not we knowingly elect people that we know are 100% corrupt to our highest public offices.

Do we even give a shit anymore? Do they? If you give these folks de facto permission to violate the law what happens to our nation?

East Coast Hustle

  • Missile Command
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 46213
  • Omnimalevolent Polyfather of Exsanguination in Red
    • View Profile
We'll have to agree to disagree about the reputability of zerohedge but I think your point is a very important one. I think we've probably mostly always been an oligarchy (with occasional blips of socialist-tinged populism, just enough to keep the myth alive) and I think that the long game has to be that we use the increased availability of information to steer things away from jaded acceptance of that status quo. It'll be a generational change, if it happens at all. Not gonna be some Arab Spring-like "people in the streets" moment.
Rabid Colostomy Hole Jammer of the Coming Apocalypse™

The Devil is in the details; God is in the nuance.


Some yahoo yelled at me, saying 'GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH', and I thought, "I'm feeling generous today.  Why not BOTH?"

babyjesus

  • Known & Noted
  • **
  • Posts: 1055
  • SPAG
    • View Profile
We'll have to agree to disagree about the reputability of zerohedge but I think your point is a very important one. I think we've probably mostly always been an oligarchy (with occasional blips of socialist-tinged populism, just enough to keep the myth alive) and I think that the long game has to be that we use the increased availability of information to steer things away from jaded acceptance of that status quo. It'll be a generational change, if it happens at all. Not gonna be some Arab Spring-like "people in the streets" moment.

I think we are on a slippery slope and that the force vector of societal corruption can't be overcome once it generates momentum.

Quote
In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
~ Ben Franklin, Constitutional Convention, 1787

Junkenstein

  • Technically-Oriented & Horribly Mobile Crecy of Crab Lice.
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 114864
    • View Profile
Those news sources look somewhat questionable.

So what's the driving point here? Clinton's bad so.....? What? Trump and his wall? Write in Bernie?


Also, Hi new guy. How's life?

Hey you too.

It ain't about Berning Man or the Donald.

It is about whether or not it is important that our leading elected officials be subject to laws at all. And fwiw 2 of those three sources were zerohedge, pretty reputable by web standards. You should maybe check them out, esp if you study the economy. (1)

It is about whether or not we knowingly elect people that we know are 100% corrupt to our highest public offices. (2)

Do we even give a shit anymore? Do they? If you give these folks de facto permission to violate the law what happens to our nation? (3)

1 - I did look at it and that's what drew me to a to conclude "Shonky". Cain is probably your best man to ask for reputable places for this kind of information. My list is more politically orientated than economic.

2 - HA. Look at the current US 2 man con. You've got Clinton and Trump. Both have waves of filth behind them. Being horribly corrupt is mandatory for high office as you need to take care of all the people who got you there. I'd gladly bin every UK MP with a smell of corruption about them but that would leave around 12 (And that's highly optimistic) left in there. Who now are the new go to people for lobbyists so the cycle will perpetuate. Until you've got a mandatory, open and honest record of members interests this shit will always occur. Holidays are disguised as "conferences", booze runs are "fact finding missions" and so on. Unfortunately you need legislation to change this and turkeys are unlikely to vote for an early Christmas.

Until you effectively remove money from politics, you will always have a horrible degree of corruption. Every party, all levels, all "democracies".

3- This is where party politics really fucks everything up. People don't care about wrongdoing on "their" side but cry foul at the behaviour of "them". You could show groups pictures of their candidates eating children and a large percentage will claim it to be propaganda from the other side regardless of any accompanying evidence.

There's probably a larger point here about the media and setting narratives too. You can guess the flavour of most places reporting on any given story without too much effort. Faux, for example is rarely going to care about republican wrong-doing if there's a democrat to point at.

It may be worth you keeping an eye on the Chilcot stuff that the UK will be releasing shortly. Said report apparently puts the Iraq war blame squarely on the soldiers while giving Blair a free pass. Government leaders often have a blanket immunity to prosecution after they leave office for any acts undertaken while in office. I obviously don't agree with that, but will you ever see a leader argue for it to go away? Will any of their prominent supporters when they could one day be fucked by such a law?

ECH - I'd put money on no change until you get a lot of fucking people in the streets. The systems the UK/US are the best money can buy as money has bought and paid for them. Until you get significant pressure from elements without a vested interest you'll just have more of the same. You'd also need to convince people that republicans and democrats are essentially the same fucking thing and many will struggle with that and dismiss any alternatives. After all, "those guys" are lunatic arseholes who just want to ruin the country.

AIB - There was a piece by Twid called something like "founding fathers". From what I recall it seems relevant here. QG?
Nine naked Men just walking down the road will cause a heap of trouble for all concerned.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Her "cloests aide" "revelaed"? Pardon me if I'm slightly skeptical of a news source that doesn't even bother trying to mind their spelling.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


Junkenstein

  • Technically-Oriented & Horribly Mobile Crecy of Crab Lice.
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 114864
    • View Profile
Her "cloests aide" "revelaed"? Pardon me if I'm slightly skeptical of a news source that doesn't even bother trying to mind their spelling.

This is why I was missing Nigel. 
Nine naked Men just walking down the road will cause a heap of trouble for all concerned.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Her "cloests aide" "revelaed"? Pardon me if I'm slightly skeptical of a news source that doesn't even bother trying to mind their spelling.

This is why I was missing Nigel.

:thanks:
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


babyjesus

  • Known & Noted
  • **
  • Posts: 1055
  • SPAG
    • View Profile
Those news sources look somewhat questionable.

So what's the driving point here? Clinton's bad so.....? What? Trump and his wall? Write in Bernie?


Also, Hi new guy. How's life?

Hey you too.

It ain't about Berning Man or the Donald.

It is about whether or not it is important that our leading elected officials be subject to laws at all. And fwiw 2 of those three sources were zerohedge, pretty reputable by web standards. You should maybe check them out, esp if you study the economy. (1)

It is about whether or not we knowingly elect people that we know are 100% corrupt to our highest public offices. (2)

Do we even give a shit anymore? Do they? If you give these folks de facto permission to violate the law what happens to our nation? (3)

1 - I did look at it and that's what drew me to a to conclude "Shonky". Cain is probably your best man to ask for reputable places for this kind of information. My list is more politically orientated than economic.


Shonky? Hmph.

Before the econ collapse of there was a small cadre or amateur economists who accurately predicted the looming collapse, I was among them. We were able to do so not because we were especially gifted or because we used cheap tricks like rejecting standard orthodoxy or contrarianism. But because the evidence of the looming collapse was blatantly obvious and based on facts.

Personally I was the first among these several thousand amecons who posted online the final trigger for the collapse when the Fed began openly monetizing US debt in April of 2008. I went on to accurately predict that there would be no recovery, that whatever illusion of recovery there ever was would only occur after the baby boomers retired and lots of other things like the trend toward global wage parity, increasingly unsustainable levels of debt and leverage, etc.

Half of this motley crew were gold bugs who made a living selling alarmist literature (term applied loosely) or even physical gold, mining stocks etc.

The other half ran the gambit from people like Henry C. K. Liu http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Others/Henry.html , to idiots like myself.

But hey, at least we could make sense of HCKLiu, and more importantly recognize that what he was saying was based on facts and was indeed true.

Since that time that community has matured significantly giving rise to blogs  and bloggers like Charles Hughes Smith http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/ (regularly featured on zerohedge) and on the geopolitical side veterans like Paul Craig Roberts http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/ (also liberally featured on zerohedge) and many many other fine independent economic and geopolitical commentators, (Nassim Nicholas Taleb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb , David Stockman http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/ . (many of whom are regulars at zerohedge as well)

My point is that there really isn't much room to school me on sources for quality info about the economy from either academic or alternative resources. If it deals with the economy or theories of economics etc I have read it and in most cases discounted it.

jus sayin.

Junkenstein

  • Technically-Oriented & Horribly Mobile Crecy of Crab Lice.
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 114864
    • View Profile
Well then.

Nigel, it's been a while, would you like this one?
Nine naked Men just walking down the road will cause a heap of trouble for all concerned.

babyjesus

  • Known & Noted
  • **
  • Posts: 1055
  • SPAG
    • View Profile
Those news sources look somewhat questionable.

So what's the driving point here? Clinton's bad so.....? What? Trump and his wall? Write in Bernie?


Also, Hi new guy. How's life?

Hey you too.

It ain't about Berning Man or the Donald.

It is about whether or not it is important that our leading elected officials be subject to laws at all. And fwiw 2 of those three sources were zerohedge, pretty reputable by web standards. You should maybe check them out, esp if you study the economy. (1)

It is about whether or not we knowingly elect people that we know are 100% corrupt to our highest public offices. (2)

Do we even give a shit anymore? Do they? If you give these folks de facto permission to violate the law what happens to our nation? (3)

1 - I did look at it and that's what drew me to a to conclude "Shonky". Cain is probably your best man to ask for reputable places for this kind of information. My list is more politically orientated than economic.

2 - HA. Look at the current US 2 man con. You've got Clinton and Trump. Both have waves of filth behind them. Being horribly corrupt is mandatory for high office as you need to take care of all the people who got you there. I'd gladly bin every UK MP with a smell of corruption about them but that would leave around 12 (And that's highly optimistic) left in there. Who now are the new go to people for lobbyists so the cycle will perpetuate. Until you've got a mandatory, open and honest record of members interests this shit will always occur. Holidays are disguised as "conferences", booze runs are "fact finding missions" and so on. Unfortunately you need legislation to change this and turkeys are unlikely to vote for an early Christmas.

Until you effectively remove money from politics, you will always have a horrible degree of corruption. Every party, all levels, all "democracies".

3- This is where party politics really fucks everything up. People don't care about wrongdoing on "their" side but cry foul at the behaviour of "them". You could show groups pictures of their candidates eating children and a large percentage will claim it to be propaganda from the other side regardless of any accompanying evidence.

There's probably a larger point here about the media and setting narratives too. You can guess the flavour of most places reporting on any given story without too much effort. Faux, for example is rarely going to care about republican wrong-doing if there's a democrat to point at.

It may be worth you keeping an eye on the Chilcot stuff that the UK will be releasing shortly. Said report apparently puts the Iraq war blame squarely on the soldiers while giving Blair a free pass. Government leaders often have a blanket immunity to prosecution after they leave office for any acts undertaken while in office. I obviously don't agree with that, but will you ever see a leader argue for it to go away? Will any of their prominent supporters when they could one day be fucked by such a law?

ECH - I'd put money on no change until you get a lot of fucking people in the streets. The systems the UK/US are the best money can buy as money has bought and paid for them. Until you get significant pressure from elements without a vested interest you'll just have more of the same. You'd also need to convince people that republicans and democrats are essentially the same fucking thing and many will struggle with that and dismiss any alternatives. After all, "those guys" are lunatic arseholes who just want to ruin the country.

AIB - There was a piece by Twid called something like "founding fathers". From what I recall it seems relevant here. QG?

OK, money in politics, check, I get it.

Partisanship, check, I get it.

Healthy measure of well honed cynicism, check, I get it, and enjoy it.

BUT, it makes a great deal of difference how openly we endorse corruption from on high. And this election is as you say about as powerful an endorsement of corruption as Americans have ever been asked to make. Excepting Bernie Man of course.

The dynasties are imo the greater evil by far, both of clan Bush and Clan Clinton.

In some arrangement or another a member of those clans has been in our circle of leaders since the Bros Kennedy were assassinated and those crimes covered up.

IOW those two clans are in on the coup that masquerades as our elected government.

Just my opinion.

Founding fathers?

Junkenstein

  • Technically-Oriented & Horribly Mobile Crecy of Crab Lice.
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 114864
    • View Profile
Quote
IOW those two clans are in on the coup that masquerades as our elected government.

Just my opinion.

Please expand on this opinion. I'm intrigued.
Nine naked Men just walking down the road will cause a heap of trouble for all concerned.