Wednesday, August 17, 2016

THIS JUST IN! GAS PUPPET FOR CLINTON!!!


BULLY BOY PRESS &  CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE


CRANKY CLINTON'S ASS PUPPET JOSHUA HOLLAND DEFENDS HER AT THE NATION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT ASS PUPPETS DO -- THEY WHINE AND THEY LIE AND THEY WASTE OUR TIME.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, HOLLAND REPLIED, "FFFFFFFFFFPPPPPPHHHHHHHHTTTTT!" 

HE WAS TALKING OUT HIS ASS YET AGAIN.




The press treats Iraq as static because it benefits their political heroes.

It doesn't benefit the truth.

But that's how empire works.

Do you really think, at the height of the British Empire, reporters were telling the truth about how this was being done to enrich a few?

Reporters are whores, they just usually fail to satisfy the customers -- so they're bad whores.

And they so pollute the system that when a few real reporters try to cover a story there's no way not to make mistakes.


It was way too hard...it was way too tough...
On this she had not bargained
But she was like some missionary dancing to the beat of some
man's ancient drum
And she tries hard to tell this story...but it's a hard one to tell
She consults her book of Miracles...
Cry...and the wind says fly on
Well now you're on your own
You're back out on the road again for a million reasons
Well you're back out on the road again
And you try to tie together some connections...
You get some ribbons and some bows and get back out on the road again
-- "Juliet," written by Stevie Nicks, first appears on her album THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MIRROR




It's a hard story to tell.


But Jeff Gerth (PROPUBLICA) and Joby Warrick (WASHINGTON POST) team up in an attempt at it:

A week before the last U.S. soldiers left his country in December 2011, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki traveled to Washington to meet the team that would help shape Iraq’s future once the troops and tanks were gone.
Over dinner at the Blair House, guest quarters for elite White House visitors since the 1940s, the dour Iraqi sipped tea while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke of how her department’s civilian experts could help Iraqis avoid a return to terrorism and sectarian bloodshed.
Iraq would see a “robust civilian presence,” Clinton told reporters afterward, summing up the Obama administration’s pledges to Maliki. “We are working to achieve that,” she said.

Less than three years later, the relatively calm Iraq that Maliki had led in 2011 was gone. The country’s government was in crisis, its U.S.-trained army humiliated, and a third of its territory overrun by fighters from the Islamic State. Meanwhile, State Department programs aimed at helping Iraqis prevent such an outcome had been slashed or curtailed, and some had never materialized at all.


It's a strong article.

It's also an incomplete article.

It paints Hillary correctly as wanting a US presence in Iraq.

Where it fails is rushing to the White House slashing the program -- and the why of it.

As 2012, progresses, the White House walks further and further away from Iraq.

That's 2012.

In October 2011, the State Dept takes over the US mission in Iraq.

Where is that in the article?

And where in the article does it note the 2011 performance of the State Dept to Congress?

Congress is over the money.

And Congress wanted to know what the US mission in Iraq was.

Have we all forgotten that?

We can offer dozens of hearings that we covered in real time but let's go to the December 1, 2011 snapshot which covered the November 30th hearing of the  House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East ans South Asia. 


RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"






Posted by at

Monday, August 15, 2016

THIS JUST IN! SHE FALLS AGAIN!

BULLY BOY PRESS &  CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE


WAR HAWK CRANKY CLINTON HAD A DOUBLE DIGIT LEAD SCREAMED THE CORPORATE MEDIA ALL LAST WEEK!!!!!

BUT . . . 


THAT'S ONLY A 5% LEAD.

AND WITH A +/- OF 3%, YOU COULD FURTHER ARGUE IT'S ONLY A 2% LEAD.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY HOLLERED, "GRRRROWWWWWLLLLL! I WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!"






Here's a reality about the corporate Democratic Party.

They had two choices after the 2000 election.

They felt that voters for Ralph Nader cut into their votes.

So they could (a) attempt to shame Nader voters or (b) move to the damn left.

They didn't move to the left.

They're corporate whores -- and that's true of the GOP as well.

 Aug 12
Stop supporting fascists or "extremely careless" warmongering wall st shills with poor judgement (Iraq War)

61 retweets66 likes




And it's really sad to see Cher applaud them for that.

Come Back To Reality, Cherilyn, Cherilyn.

She used to have a lot more sense.

No one owns your vote except you.

In the United States, you choose how to use your vote.

If you're happy about your vote, whomever it's for, great.

That's what we should aspire to.

But your vote has to be earned.

If no one earns it, you shouldn't give it away.

Hillary took her vote seriously . . . when she voted for the Iraq War.
 10h10 hours ago
Clinton led majority of Senate Dems to support Iraq War, said it was "indisputable" Iraq had WMDs. Neocons now support her.
512 retweets679 likes





If Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Jerry White, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trumps earns your vote, I'm happy for you.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"



Posted by at

Friday, August 12, 2016

THIS JUST IN! THEY INVESTIGATE THEMSELVES!

BULLY BOY PRESS &  CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE

ANYTHING GOES AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE NO ONE EVER INVESTIGATES.



"WE STICK OUR THUMBS UP OUR ASS AND WAIT A MOMENT OR TWO.  IF WE DON'T FART, WE'RE INNOCENT.  IF WE DO FART, WE'RE STILL INNOCENT.  IT'S VERY SCIENTIFIC AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE MAJORS ACROSS THE COUNTRY PRAISE THE IN DEPTH NATURE."







Apologies for yesterday's snapshot when we noted Donald Trump's bad joke.

We noted that, in May of 2008, Hillary Clinton had explained she was still in the race against Barack Obama for the 2008 Democratic Party's presidential nomination because, in June of 1968, RFK was assassinated.

Her comment -- not a joke -- outraged many.

That is all correct.

What I did not know was Mike pointed out in "Why hasn't Hillary called out Bob Beckel for calling for the assassination of Assange," that one of her campaign high levels was calling for the assassination of Julian Assange.



Hillary Clinton strategist Bob Beckel called for WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange to be assassinated.
7:25 AM - 10 Aug 2016
15,359 retweets9,986 likes




    1.  21 hours ago
      but Trump can't make jokes/comments about Hillary & 2nd Amendment? Nice double standard there, Queen Bee!
      344 retweets1,062 likes





My apologies because this raises a completely different issue.

Yes, Mike and antiscoialista are correct about the hypocrisy of Hillary.

But there's another issue.

She's running to become president.

It's not just that her crony is calling for the assassination of Julian Assange.

She wants to become the head of the US government.

The US government has a legal system.

What the disgusting Beckel apparently didn't learn in rehab was the Constitution.

Did Hillary?

If she wants to become president of the United States, the American people need to know she will fairly enforce the legal system.

Julian Assange has been found guilty of no crimes by any court of law -- US or international.

It appears that yet again we have the Clinton standard -- where rules are tossed aside.

If that's not the case, if Hillary is committed to the US legal system, she needs to condemn Beckel's remarks.

Maybe she's too busy dealing with her latest 'lost' e-mails that she wishes were lost but are not.


From yesterday's US State Dept press briefing:




QUESTION: And I support you in that effort. The Clinton emails. (Laughter.) Does -

QUESTION: Just the subject she wanted to go to. (Laughter.)

MS TRUDEAU: Thank you, Matt. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Right. I think she was trying to skip out before this came up. (Laughter.) But all right, so I want to ask you about one of the emails, and I know you addressed this briefly yesterday. One came from – that the critics have seized on came from Doug Band of the Clinton Foundation, asking Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills in an email to, quote – it’s saying, “It’s important to take care of” – and then the name is redacted, and he is obviously pushing to get this person a job in the State Department. And then Huma replies, basically, they’re working on it.
Can you tell us why the State Department redacted that name, and whether or not this person wound up getting a job or not?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Well, I can’t speak to specific case – cases. I’m also not going to speak to specific redactions. I will note though, broadly, the department regularly hires political appointees with a range of skill sets for a broad variety of jobs. It’s not unusual for candidates to be recommended to the department through a variety of avenues.

QUESTION: The --

QUESTION: Hold on, because that answer --

QUESTION: Let me just follow up, Matt. Sorry.

QUESTION: All right.

MS TRUDEAU: Hold on one second, and then I’ll get there, Matt.

QUESTION: The Clinton campaign is on background saying today it’s a – it was a young advance staffer, not a donor or a foundation employee. I guess I just – I need a little help understanding why this person’s name cannot be shared.

MS TRUDEAU: I can’t speak to specific cases, and I certainly can’t speak to comments from the – from the campaign.

QUESTION: Would it be wrong to assume that, then, that this is a case simply of nepotism or something like that? I mean, what – how are we then supposed to interpret what --

MS TRUDEAU: You – I can’t speak to specific cases, Justin.
Matt, did --

QUESTION: But it’s the State Department’s decision to redact those names, and nobody else’s decision.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. And I’m not going to speak to specific redactions nor specific cases.
Matt.

QUESTION: Well, I’m just curious. Were you answering his question “was this person hired,” without getting into who it was?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, I can’t speak to specific cases or specific --

QUESTION: This is pretty – in fact, it’s pretty non-specific since we don’t know what the name is. It’s specific as to --

MS TRUDEAU: But you’re asking about a specific hiring action?

QUESTION: I’m asking if the person referred – if you know if the person referred to in this email whose name has been redacted ended up getting a job here.

MS TRUDEAU: I have no information to speak to specific cases.

QUESTION: But you just said --

QUESTION: But it’s --

QUESTION: In your answer to Justin, you said that the State Department hires from all sorts of places.

MS TRUDEAU: From all sorts of avenues. We receive recommendations from a variety --

QUESTION: But this person wasn’t hired, then?

MS TRUDEAU: I have no information --

QUESTION: Or was?

MS TRUDEAU: -- on that specific case or any specific case.

QUESTION: But if the person is not named, then it’s not specific.

MS TRUDEAU: I think we’re parsing.

QUESTION: I --

MS TRUDEAU: More on Clinton emails?

QUESTION: No, it’s not really parsing. It’s – I mean, it – it’s specific to people who are non-career State Department employees who were hired after this email. That’s the universe. And the question is: Is this person referred to one of them?

MS TRUDEAU: Again, I am unable to speak to specific cases.

QUESTION: Well, how then can you disabuse us of the notion that there’s any impropriety here?

MS TRUDEAU: Because the department regularly hires political appointees with a range of skill 
sets from a broad – for a broad variety of jobs.

QUESTION: But why should we trust that’s – that that’s – why should we believe that that statement exonerates any – her – the Clinton – of any impropriety? I mean, we don’t know who it is. How then can we read that as it’s all good?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m just not going to speak anymore to specifics on this.
Do we have more on Clinton emails?

QUESTION: Yes, we do.

MS TRUDEAU: Of course, we do. Do you mind if I go to Abigail first?

QUESTION: No.

MS TRUDEAU: Go ahead, Abigail.

QUESTION: Do you have any response to criticism by some that suggest there was a relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department at the time? There was an email that came out in this recent set that is between the – an executive at the Clinton Foundation and Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills where he is requesting to set up a meeting between a billionaire donor and the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon. Do you have any response to --

MS TRUDEAU: So very similar to what I said before, I’m not going to speak to specific emails. However, I think you guys know State Department officials are regularly in touch with a wide variety of outside individuals and organizations, including businesses, nonprofits, NGOs, think tanks. The nearly 55,000 pages of former Secretary Clinton’s emails released by the department over the past year give a sense of the wide range of individuals both inside and outside of government that State Department officials are in contact with on a range of subjects.

QUESTION: So you don’t feel like this email or you don’t feel like there was impropriety in the relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department at the time?

MS TRUDEAU: We talk to a wide range of people, at my level, at various levels in the department – NGOs, think tanks, business leaders, experts on a variety of subjects.

QUESTION: But that’s not her – that’s not her question.

QUESTION: Except in this – and importantly, in this case, Secretary Clinton made a pledge that she would not personally or substantially in any way involve herself with the Clinton Foundation. So it’s not just any outside organization. It’s the specific organization that she said ahead of time she wouldn’t have contact with. So doesn’t that – doesn’t this, then, seem to violate that pledge?

MS TRUDEAU: So again, to reiterate, department officials are in touch with a wide range of individuals. I’d note that former Secretary Clinton’s ethics agreement did not preclude other State Department officials from having contact with Clinton Foundation staff.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Can you at least try to answer Abigail’s question, which was: Has the department looked into this and determined that there was no impropriety?

MS TRUDEAU: The department is regularly in touch with people across the whole spectrum, Matt.

QUESTION: That’s not the question. The question is whether or not you’ve looked into this – the building has looked into it and determined that everything was okay, that there was nothing wrong here.

MS TRUDEAU: We feel confident in our ability and our past practice of reaching out to a variety of sources and being responsive to requests.

QUESTION: I’m sorry, are you – am I not speaking English? Is this – I mean, is it coming across as a foreign – I’m not asking you if – no one is saying it’s not okay or it’s bad for the department to get a broad variety of input from different people. Asking – the question is whether or not you have determined that there was nothing improper here.

MS TRUDEAU: We feel confident that all the rules were followed.

QUESTION: That’s (inaudible).

MS TRUDEAU: Good.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Are we – we’re still doing Clinton emails? I’ll come back to you, Abigail. Go ahead, Arshad.

QUESTION: So Judicial Watch released 10 additional pages of emails this morning.

MS TRUDEAU: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: In one of them, it documents that Secretary Clinton’s – former Secretary Clinton’s then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills was advised of a FOIA request in which the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington had sought, quote, “records sufficient to show the number of email accounts of or associated with Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton and the extent to which those email accounts are identifiable … of or associated with Secretary Clinton.” That – the email that chief of staff – then-chief of staff Mills received was sent on December the 11th, 2012, and according to the emails released, I believe she acknowledged it and said thanks in response.
So if she was aware, as she was because she was notified of this FOIA request asking about the different email accounts that were associated with Secretary Clinton at the time, why did the department subsequently tell the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington that there were no responsive records?

MS TRUDEAU: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Because she knew, because she – we know for a fact – emailed with Secretary Clinton on her private account. So – and we also know that she, as a lawyer, is the person who helped make the determinations on which of the emails on the private server constituted federal records and should therefore be turned over to the archives, many of which have now been made public. So why, if she knew in December of 2012 that there were requests for clarity on how many accounts Secretary Clinton had, did the State Department not forthrightly and honestly answer that request rather than just saying there were no responsive records?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. A lot there, so I’m going to give you a fulsome response on that. In 2012, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, known by the acronym CREW, sent FOIA requests to a number of agencies seeking information about email use by agency heads. This FOIA request, as it relates to the State Department, has been covered extensively in the press and reviewed previously by State’s inspector general. The documents released today show what the OIG already reported in January 2016, that former Secretary Clinton’s chief of staff Cheryl Mills was informed of the request at the time it was received and subsequently tasked staff to follow up. The OIG report also found no evidence that S/ES, L, and IPS staff involved in responding to requests for information, searching for records, or drafting the response had knowledge of the secretary’s email use. Ms. Mills has testified about this topic previously; that testimony is publicly available.
I can’t speculate what may or have – may not been known about that email use. What – but I would note that the January IG report found no evidence that any senior State Department officials who exchanged emails with the secretary reviewed the search results or approved the response to CREW. Nothing in these documents alters the facts as found by the IG. So it’s in the IG report.

QUESTION: I get that it was covered in the IG report. What I don’t understand, though – I mean, the IG report also concluded that the response that there were no responsive records was, quote, “inaccurate and incomplete.” And my question goes to why someone who was aware of that specific FOIA request, who was aware of the specific request for information regarding how many emails – email accounts the secretary had or were associated with her, would not have disclosed to S/ES, L, the FOIA people, or anybody else the fact of the private server so that federal records could in fact be made available in response to the FOIA request.

MS TRUDEAU: So I think what you’re asking about is why wasn’t that FOIA request amended.

QUESTION: No, I’m not asking that. I’m asking why the person – a person who was both in a position to know about the FOIA request and who was well aware and frequently corresponded with former Secretary Clinton on her private account did not make the existence of that account available and known to the people whose legal responsibility it was to respond honestly, accurately, and completely to a FOIA request. That’s my question, not why wasn’t it amended. Why wasn’t it correctly responded to in the first place?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. It’s a good question. I don’t have an answer for you. As I note, we – the IG found no evidence that any senior department official reviewed the search results or approved the response to CREW.

QUESTION: What about non-senior people?

MS TRUDEAU: I have no process chart, flow chart, on how that FOIA request was responded to, but it was taken a look at. The IG reported this in January 2016 and did note that result.

QUESTION: Can I also ask back on the hiring?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. I want to Abigail too unless we answered – okay.

QUESTION: I mean, essentially that.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: I was just going to say I guess it just stands out that it seems like a pretty broad request, so it seems like something you would flag if the response was no records in response to that. It seems like something that a FOIA person would note is unusual or that there might be an issue or a problem there.

MS TRUDEAU: Again, I can’t speak to process. I would note that this was extensively covered, though, in the January 2016 IG report.
Go ahead, Nick.

QUESTION: But that didn’t ultimately put any blame on Cheryl Mills, did it – that IG report?

MS TRUDEAU: I’d refer you to the IG report itself.

QUESTION: Because it really looks like she was not speaking up.

MS TRUDEAU: I’m – yeah, I’m not going got characterize the IG report. They would speak for themselves.
Go ahead, Nick.

QUESTION: You mentioned that State receives a lot of recommendations for candidates and things like that. I mean, what sort of guidelines do you have in place to make sure that when you act on those claims, the department or staff in the department are not drifting into nepotism or, I mean, a hiring decision --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. I think the department has public guidelines that are online in terms of appointments. I would direct you there. In terms of questions on screening for nepotism, which you raised, we follow federal law.

QUESTION: Or cronyism.

QUESTION: And have you been – have you been reviewing those guidelines in the wake of some of these email disclosures to make sure they’re adequate?

MS TRUDEAU: I’m aware of no review.
Was that a question, Arshad?

QUESTION: Well, I just wanted to make sure that your answer covered not merely nepotism, which refers to family members, but also cronyism, which refers to associates.

MS TRUDEAU: I would say that we live up to our federal obligations.

QUESTION: I looked up nepotism. It can be friends too --

MS TRUDEAU: Thanks, Justin.

QUESTION: -- in the broad sense of the definition.

QUESTION: So in other words, in – also in this hiring situation, you’re confident nothing was – that the department is – the department --

MS TRUDEAU: We feel confident that we followed State Department guidelines and federal law.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Have you looked into it on that one instance? You can’t say that you --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not aware of any review going on now.

QUESTION: Okay. So you’re confident you lived up to the guidelines even though you haven’t reviewed it?

MS TRUDEAU: I am not aware of any review, but I am confident that we followed the guidelines and the State Department’s internal procedures as well as lived up to federal law.

QUESTION: So you’re confident that you followed the guidelines even though you’re not aware of any review?

MS TRUDEAU: Correct.


We'll stop there.

State Dept spokesperson Elizabeth Trudeau explaining to the world that no investigation or review was conducted to determine whether guidelines were followed, that none needs to be, because she just knows -- a bird told her? -- that nothing untoward was done.

That's now the standard apparently.






Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)