March 3, 2015
Bob Cesca
Political Twitter (click here) is ablaze with outrage over a front page story in Tuesday’s The New York Times detailing how Hillary Clinton, while Secretary of State, used a private email account for all of her email correspondence, apparently in violation of the law. Given the statistics, however, roughly 43 percent of the Twitter users debating the story probably didn’t read beyond the first couple of paragraphs. If they had, they might not be as outraged.
On the surface it sounds damning. The Secretary of State potentially sent top secret information through her personal account, even though there’s evidently a law that says she’s not allowed to use a personal account for government business — sounds outrageous. But like many of the bombshell news stories we’ve witnessed in the last couple of years, it all falls apart under the most cursory level of scrutiny.
Here are some items from the article (or not) that are either exculpatory or unclear....
Bob Woodward is correct in stating the new laws requiring the storage of all government emails could grow into a nightmare for the average citizen and the implication on legislative outcomes. In many ways it removes Executive Privilege and borders on a security breach for the USA. His observation was my first thought. How much oversight is too much oversight. We have witnessed a considerably more politically motivated legislature which would compromise the powers of the President. If Congress had it's way after the Netanyahu speech, the entire Iranian meetings would be cancelled and the USA withdraw from those talks.
If there are lazy activists anywhere in the USA they are in the legislature today. They lead from behind in the legislature and not out front speaking the truth to their constituents. The US House is among the worst members of the legislature when it comes to leadership; there is none. The House leadership are cowards and completely bend to monies of their politics in cronyism. It would seem as though Scalise has a dependency on Cheney in leadership and brings him into the House chamber as if an open door policy. The US House legislature has lost all credibility in it's extremism and forced a more legitimate vote of the DHS funding.
I don't have a problem with saving the information, but, there has to be a limit to their exposure so they move into history and NORMAL journalism access to most classified information. I simply do not trust the legislature to conduct itself morally in a way that would prohibit the communication information for use in their political theater that is now the entire Congress.
One has to recall other allies aren't happy with the records already contained kept by the USA. It was not along ago Chancellor Merkel was appalled at the spying of the USA on her communications in her capacity of governing. Now, our allies are horrified that their emails within the USA government system or out will become part of record they have no control. The USA has to be open to communication period and not simply communication by government system.
These new laws, which does not apply to Former Secretary of State Clinton, has to be scrutinized in hearings as to the benevolence of the law and the reality of the world as it exists today. National Security can be compromised in such laws. The one place in national security that is served by these laws is detecting the lies of those that lie to Congress under oath. That is troubling and may have been the primary driver to the passage of them.
There have to be consequences to laws when breached, not simply a slap on the wrist.
Bob Cesca
Political Twitter (click here) is ablaze with outrage over a front page story in Tuesday’s The New York Times detailing how Hillary Clinton, while Secretary of State, used a private email account for all of her email correspondence, apparently in violation of the law. Given the statistics, however, roughly 43 percent of the Twitter users debating the story probably didn’t read beyond the first couple of paragraphs. If they had, they might not be as outraged.
On the surface it sounds damning. The Secretary of State potentially sent top secret information through her personal account, even though there’s evidently a law that says she’s not allowed to use a personal account for government business — sounds outrageous. But like many of the bombshell news stories we’ve witnessed in the last couple of years, it all falls apart under the most cursory level of scrutiny.
Here are some items from the article (or not) that are either exculpatory or unclear....
Bob Woodward is correct in stating the new laws requiring the storage of all government emails could grow into a nightmare for the average citizen and the implication on legislative outcomes. In many ways it removes Executive Privilege and borders on a security breach for the USA. His observation was my first thought. How much oversight is too much oversight. We have witnessed a considerably more politically motivated legislature which would compromise the powers of the President. If Congress had it's way after the Netanyahu speech, the entire Iranian meetings would be cancelled and the USA withdraw from those talks.
If there are lazy activists anywhere in the USA they are in the legislature today. They lead from behind in the legislature and not out front speaking the truth to their constituents. The US House is among the worst members of the legislature when it comes to leadership; there is none. The House leadership are cowards and completely bend to monies of their politics in cronyism. It would seem as though Scalise has a dependency on Cheney in leadership and brings him into the House chamber as if an open door policy. The US House legislature has lost all credibility in it's extremism and forced a more legitimate vote of the DHS funding.
I don't have a problem with saving the information, but, there has to be a limit to their exposure so they move into history and NORMAL journalism access to most classified information. I simply do not trust the legislature to conduct itself morally in a way that would prohibit the communication information for use in their political theater that is now the entire Congress.
One has to recall other allies aren't happy with the records already contained kept by the USA. It was not along ago Chancellor Merkel was appalled at the spying of the USA on her communications in her capacity of governing. Now, our allies are horrified that their emails within the USA government system or out will become part of record they have no control. The USA has to be open to communication period and not simply communication by government system.
These new laws, which does not apply to Former Secretary of State Clinton, has to be scrutinized in hearings as to the benevolence of the law and the reality of the world as it exists today. National Security can be compromised in such laws. The one place in national security that is served by these laws is detecting the lies of those that lie to Congress under oath. That is troubling and may have been the primary driver to the passage of them.
There have to be consequences to laws when breached, not simply a slap on the wrist.
