A Toast to Hillary or What the GOP is

13hillary-announcements-video-videoSixteenByNine540

 

It is official. She's  announced

For president, has Hillary.

And now Republicans will buy

More  stuff from a distillery.

delirium

Filed under: humor, politics

Tags: Hillary Clinton

Comments

Leave a comment
  • On the other hand, I don't think Hillary emerges from the Democratic Party primary process. I don't know what your opinion of running government business on a private mail server (Sarah Palin took it for running state business on Yahoo), but there seems to be a point to having a Federal Records Act and Freedom of Information Act. I have a feeling that voters will think she is too entitled, just as slick as Willie, and not progressive enough.

    One also has to wonder how secure the private communications were or whether someone has already hacked clintonemail.com and already knows diplomatic secrets.

  • In reply to jack:

    You may be right Jack, apparently she's not progressive enough for De Blasio, who has already seen twitter threats from Hillary Rosen for his heresy.

  • For some reason I think Mrs.Clinton running for President is akin to her looking for the perfect shoes to go with one of her pantsuits......trivial but interesting.

  • In reply to Craig Jackson:

    Her boots were made for running.

  • Heavens to Betsy! It's laughable to conflate Sarah Palin with Hillary. As for the kerfuffle over FRA, if I understand it, it was only for archival purposes, and the rules were established after her stint as Secretary of State.

    I think she's the prohibited favorite for the nomination, but anything can happen, as you know. Is she progressive enough? We'll find out. The main thing is her bonnet is in the ring.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Oops. Make that the 'prohibitive' favorite.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Stuff is supposed to go through the Freedom of Information Act process to see (at least from the media's perspective) if the government is doing its job. It is probably bad enough that certain stuff comes within an exemption, but it should not be up to a cabinet officer to decide what can be put on a private server and scrubbed by her.

    Yes, she can be conflated with Sarah Palin for e-mail security purposes. You should remember that the only way Oliver North was caught was that he thought he had deleted his email, but didn't realize that it was backed up on a mainframe. It looks like Hillary learned something from that episode, but not the correct thing. Hence, this "transgression" is not trivial.

    I still don't think that her "I take responsibility for Benghazi, but I'm out of here" withstands scrutiny if she wants the top office.

  • In reply to jack:

    Jack, I have heard the arguments both ways as to whether Clinton violated the Federal Records Act. What I have not heard is why this may be a violation of the Freedom of Information Act. Can you enlighten me?

  • In reply to jnorto:

    The Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C. sec 552, requires that agencies make certain records available to the public, including an obligation to "make reasonable efforts to search for the records in electronic form or format, except when such efforts would significantly interfere with the operation of the agency's automated information system."

    I'm not in a position to determine if they are "agency records" or exempt, but it sure seems like she is violating the spirit, if not the letter of FOIA by putting them on a private server and then determining herself which ones are public records, when clearly FOIA states that it is up to the agency in the first instance, and then a court to determine. At least that seems to be the gist of the AP suit (cited below, due to the one link limit here).

  • In reply to jnorto:

    Washington Post description of the lawsuits.

  • In reply to jack:

    But, as we know, there is a big divide between filing a lawsuit and winning it. Among the many other things the Washington Post will have to show is that it does not fall under one of the exemptions in part (b), especially, "(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

  • In reply to jnorto:

    That seems to have little relevance to this. Personnel and medical are defined as they are in the Human Resources context, i.e. an employee's family members, Social Security numbers, claims against the government health care insurer, that Hillary is getting testosterone treatment, etc. I don't think the AP is requesting any of that.

    Besides that, while there might be some national security exemption available, the issue does not seem so much which particular e-mails are exempt, as the handling of the records, and the State Department's alleged recalcitrance in complying with FOIA requests. The AP's own story provides a more thorough discussion of its theories. And, as I certainly implied above, I wasn't making any prediction about the success of the outcome, just that the lawsuit indicates the basis of the FOIA claim, about which you asked.

  • In reply to jack:

    But even if AP is successful, as I understand it, the result would only be an order directing the State Department to turn over all or part of what it actually has. It will not address what Clinton should have given it. That question will have to be answered under the Federal Records Act. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/chapter-31

  • In reply to jnorto:

    That may well be the case. However, considering that the plaintiff is the media, it may not be a good strategy to tick it off, unless Hillary thinks she is above media scrutiny.

  • Maybe necro, but this article shows that Hillary may not have a clear road to the White House (unless she wants to jump the fence), on two grounds--the released emails are going to get the Benghazi hearings going again, and Bernie Sanders says he'll challenge her on the left, including on Trans-Pacific.

  • Bernie for president!

Leave a comment