Posted on 09/03/2016 3:54:16 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Globalists exist. I am one (under the definition that the Brigadiers used when I first started here). Gettin’ tired of everyone blaming me when they stub their toe.
Maybe 3 for 999999 against.
Charles Tiefer, Contributor
May 25, 2016 @ 01:34 PM
State Department Report On Email Vindicates Clinton Rather Than Nails Her
Boy, Goebbels hasn’t got a thing on this guy. What a pantload.
Anyone not named "Hillary Clinton" would be prosecuted for deliberately sending only one SCI level email on the NIPR net. I doubt that "Well, it's only one half of one percent of all the emails sent" would stand up too well as a defense in court.
The author of this piece does not do a good job of defending his thesis that the FBI exonerated Clinton and showed that she is above reproach. Rather, he shows that there are two justice systems in this country--one for elitists, one for everyone else.
This guy is a law professor?
It's simply too difficult for every person to whom access to secrets is given to independently decide what is classified and deserving of protection and what isn't deserving of such protection.
The classification system describes who may classify information, who may de-classify information, what classifications exist, what protections are to be provided to each classification, and the punishments for failing to observe the proper procedures for handling these documents.
The whole system is designed to relieve the government of having to prove treason or espionage when someone mishandles classified information. It's simply too difficult to know to whom such information might have been given or when. The solution is to deny the people in possession of such secrets any authority to disclose them to others who are not authorized to see such documents and to punish them if they don't observe the proper procedures.
Anything less makes a mockery of the expectation of safeguarding the nation's secrets.
The mockery is what we are presently witnessing. Hillary has committed multiple crimes involving classified information and it has been proposed by the Attorney General and the Director of the FBI that NOTHING be done about it.
The alternative to the system we have (or should have) is to simply ask everyone to be especially careful about handling sensitive information and do the best you can not to reveal it to our enemies. That approach is laughable and is all that remains of our present system.
Just say NO to drugs. And never believe anything a shyster lawyer says.
How do you rationalize the Constitution with your globalism?
You are almost aptly screen named. Adding ‘ignorant,’ before the rude would probably make it unwieldy though.
Actually .. I’m thinking that when one of the supposed normal people suddenly makes any favorable comment regarding Hillary .. it’s time to check the list of donors to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation.
When this whole sordid episode is over, and I am convinced that HRC will not make it to the election and *may* be indicted, the number of people who so strongly supported her for her honesty and trustworthiness are going to have a collective credibility of less than zero.
A few months ago, the State Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) published a nasty and poorly-documented report that got enormous publicity for its portions criticizing Clinton. Above all, it quoted supposed State Department sources who alleged the following, quoted here from the FBI Report, about a key documentation official, John Bentel. “According to the State OIG report, State employees alleged that John Bentel discouraged employees from raising concerns about Clinton’s use of personal e-mail.”
This statement really bothers me. First, an OIG report is not in itself nasty; it is merely a presentation of what is found in an audit. And OIG found a lot of nasty stuff in its audit. Second, it is highly unlikely that the report is poorly documented. The OIG auditors will have working papers documenting every statement they put in the report. The relevant statement from the OIG report is:
“Two staff in S/ES-IRM reported to OIG that, in late 2010, they each discussed their concerns about Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account in separate meetings with the then-Director of S/ES-IRM. In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping
requirements. According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that
the matter was not to be discussed any further. As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system. According to the other S/ES-IRM staff member who raised concerns about the server, the Director stated that the mission of S/ES-IRM is to support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email
system again.”
These are not “supposed State Department sources.” They are real staff members in S/ES-IRM. OIG would have in its work papers a record of the interview with each of the 2 employees identifying who they are, who interviewed them, when they were interviewed, where they were interviewed, and the details of what they said in the interview.
Yes or the list of Recipients from the Clinton slush fund / Moslem dictatorships/ Soros
She violated records keeping laws and destroyed government property at the very least.
The records keeping laws are never mentioned,you know why?
Violation of those gets you disqualified from seeking or holding any government position. That’s why they never charged her with the most obvious and simple crime
Article I, Section 8. Any thoughts as to why “globalism” is unconstitutional, under whatever definition the dipwads use nowadays?
Which part of Article I, Section 8? It’s rather large. What part supports globalism?
Globalism, by the way, is a supra national philosophy that normalizes all governments under its principles. The US constitution is the ONLY government that acknowledges a People with preexisting rights. Globalism rejects that. Do you?
That definition? Easily. Please bear in mind that the comment that caught my eye was the suggestion that Steve Forbes is a “globalist,” and that implied he would vote for Hillary Clinton. I doubt that the poster was suggesting that Forbes is in favor of one-world government (your definition).
Okay, fair enough for a start. But the very word “globalism” implies a one world government - or at least a one world autocracy of some kind. That’s why it’s “global.”
If one chooses to throw the term around without doing so, it loses all meaning. Which should give most people pause. And which provides me with amusement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.