|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2016 4:46 pm Post subject: Crooked Hillary |
 |
|
While I am not convinced all this is true, regarding the narrative(s) the writer is going to go on about, I do find it troubling that team HRC has enough power to blackout the interview.
http://drudgereport.com/flashss.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2016 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
She is totally crooked, Trueblue. I hope you can get to the bottom of this!
Schultz sidelined
| Quote: |
DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has turned over her duties to Brandon Davis, National Political Coordinator for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), who was installed by the Clinton campaign. Wasserman Schultz will retain her title as DNC Chair until the Democratic Party votes on a successor.
While Democratic presidential nominees traditionally appoint election managers after the primaries end—as Barack Obama did in 2008—the alleged removal of Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair was nothing more than a publicity stunt. In effect, the move allows Clinton to tout an image of responding to Wasserman Schultz’s poor favorability without actually having to do anything about it.
This is not a sign of progress. Rather, the removal buys time and entertains the possibility of retaining Wasserman Schultz after the Democratic National Convention, once criticism for her poor party leadership dies down. In short, Wasserman Schultz protected Clinton with a limited primary debate schedule and now Clinton is returning the favor—which does doing nothing to fix the corruption Wasserman Schultz flooded into the Democratic Party as DNC chair. |
Sanders was gunning for Schultz, but Clinton shields her to return the favor for the all-to-sly thin Democratic debate schedule. Now Schultz can focus on her primary challenger, Tim Canova, and she can cool off so the public can forget all her controversies. Win-Win for Clinton! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2016 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
She is totally crooked, Trueblue. I hope you can get to the bottom of this!
Schultz sidelined
| Quote: |
DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has turned over her duties to Brandon Davis, National Political Coordinator for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), who was installed by the Clinton campaign. Wasserman Schultz will retain her title as DNC Chair until the Democratic Party votes on a successor.
While Democratic presidential nominees traditionally appoint election managers after the primaries end—as Barack Obama did in 2008—the alleged removal of Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair was nothing more than a publicity stunt. In effect, the move allows Clinton to tout an image of responding to Wasserman Schultz’s poor favorability without actually having to do anything about it.
This is not a sign of progress. Rather, the removal buys time and entertains the possibility of retaining Wasserman Schultz after the Democratic National Convention, once criticism for her poor party leadership dies down. In short, Wasserman Schultz protected Clinton with a limited primary debate schedule and now Clinton is returning the favor—which does doing nothing to fix the corruption Wasserman Schultz flooded into the Democratic Party as DNC chair. |
Sanders was gunning for Schultz, but Clinton shields her to return the favor for the all-to-sly thin Democratic debate schedule. Now Schultz can focus on her primary challenger, Tim Canova, and she can cool off so the public can forget all her controversies. Win-Win for Clinton! |
I just want to see how the authority to black out this interview was delegated.
Though, Hannity seems to be first in line. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2016 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe the sex stuff from the 90s is a dead-end. It did not defeat Bill in '96, how will it defeat Hillary in '16?
http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-finds-clinton-misstated-key-facts-in-the-email-investigation-2016-5
| Quote: |
CLINTON: "It was fully above board. Everybody in the government with whom I emailed knew that I was using a personal email." — AP interview, September.
CLINTON: "The people in the government knew that I was using a personal account. The people I was emailing to on the dot gov system certainly knew and they would respond to me on my personal email." — NBC News interview, September.
THE REPORT: According to the findings, it's unclear how widespread knowledge was about Clinton's use of a personal account. Though Clinton's use of a private email was discussed with some in her agency, senior department officials who worked for her, including the undersecretary responsible for security, said they were not asked to approve or review the use of her private server.
The officials also said they were "unaware of the scope or extent" of her email practices, even though they exchanged messages with Clinton on her personal account.
In March 2015, President Barack Obama told CBS News he did not know his secretary of state was using a private account. |
Obama hired and trusted dishonest people. Hillary Clinton was one of those people. Imagine the kind of people Clinton would hire and trust. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Plain Meaning"]I believe the sex stuff from the 90s is a dead-end. It did not defeat Bill in '96, how will it defeat Hillary in '16?
http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-finds-clinton-misstated-key-facts-in-the-email-investigation-2016-5
| Quote: |
CLINTON: "It was fully above board. Everybody in the government with whom I emailed knew that I was using a personal email." — AP interview, September.
CLINTON: "The people in the government knew that I was using a personal account. The people I was emailing to on the dot gov system certainly knew and they would respond to me on my personal email." — NBC News interview, September.
THE REPORT: According to the findings, it's unclear how widespread knowledge was about Clinton's use of a personal account. Though Clinton's use of a private email was discussed with some in her agency, senior department officials who worked for her, including the undersecretary responsible for security, said they were not asked to approve or review the use of her private server.
The officials also said they were "unaware of the scope or extent" of her email practices, even though they exchanged messages with Clinton on her personal account.
In March 2015, President Barack Obama told CBS News he did not know his secretary of state was using a private account. |
Obama hired and trusted dishonest people. Hillary Clinton was one of those people. Imagine the kind of people Clinton would hire and trust.[/quote]
Oh, there was/is more than that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/06/23/cnns-clinton-cash-fact-check-ends-embarrassment-cristina-alesci-laurie-frankel/
| Quote: |
CNN Money’s “fact-checkers” Cristina Alesci and Laurie Frankel ended up with egg on their faces on Wednesday after they rated as “false” a well-established and proven Clinton Cash fact involving Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. approving the transfer of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to the Russian government, as nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Under the guise of “fact-checking” Donald Trump’s Wednesday speech, Alesci and Frankel purported to verify whether “Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.”
Alesci (pictured, right) and Frankel (left) rate the claim as “false” and allege “there’s no hard evidence of a quid pro quo.” The CNN Money “reporters” also conceded that “CNN several times has asked the Clinton Foundation to confirm whether the nine investors who benefited from the deal also contributed to the foundation, but the foundation has yet to respond.”
Why Alesci and Frankel couldn’t confirm the $145 million in Clinton Foundation donations for themselves is curious. Indeed, in a 4,000-word front page story written over a year ago, the New York Times’ Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Jo Becker and Mike McIntire verified the Clinton Cash uranium revelation in stunning detail, including charts and graphs laying out the flow of millions of dollars from the nine investors in the uranium deal who flowed $145 million to Hillary’s family foundation. Since Alesci and Frankel appear unable to perform basic journalistic research, here are the names and amounts they are still waiting on the Clinton Foundation to get back to them on:
Frank Giustra, Canadian mining magnate who created a company that later merged with UraniumOne, gave $31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million to the Clinton Foundation
Frank Holmes, a shareholder in the deal who donated between $250,000 and $500,000 (the Clinton Foundation doesn’t report exact amounts, only in ranges) and is a Clinton Foundation adviser
Neil Woodyer, Frank Giustra’s colleague who founded Endeavor Financial and pledged $500,000 as well as promises of “ongoing financial support”
Robert Disbrow, a Haywood Securities broker, the firm that provided “$58 million in capital to float shares of UrAsia’s private placement,” gave the Clinton’s family foundation between $1 and $5 million, according to Clinton Cash
Paul Reynolds, a Canaccord Capital Inc., executive who donated between $1 million and $5 million. “The UrAsia deal was the largest in Canaccord’s history,” reports Schweizer
Robert Cross, a major shareholder who serves as UrAsia Energy Director who pledged portions of his future income to the Clinton Foundation
Egizio Blanchini, “the Capital Markets vice chair and Global cohead of BMO’s Global Metals and Mining group, had also been an underwriter on the mining deals. BMO paid $600,000 for two tables at the CGS-GI’s March 2008 benefit”
Sergei Kurzin, the Russian rainmaker involved in the Kazakhstan uranium deal and a shareholder in UrAsia Energy, also pledged $1 million to the Foundation
Uranium One chairman Ian Telfer committed $2.35 million
Alesci and Frankel claim there’s “no hard evidence of a quid pro quo.” Naturally, they fail to note that the legal standard for conflicts of interest and corruption do not require a quid pro quo. Nor do they note that Hillary Clinton deleted and destroyed over 30,000 emails housed on her secret server—the obvious location of any so-called “smoking guns.”
Still, the CNN Money “fact-checkers” correctly note that “the State Department was one of several agencies that needed to sign off on the transaction.” Indeed, the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) has nine members, one of which is the State Dept. Yet through willful ignorance or an unusual lack of journalistic curiosity, Alesci and Frankel didn’t think to ask the obvious: which of the eight other agency heads needed to approve the deal were receiving $145 million to their family’s charity at the time of such a pivotal decision? And did Hillary Clinton’s State Department report the glaring conflict of interest before granting its approval of handing over 20 percent of American uranium to Putin’s Russia? Why didn’t Hillary Clinton recuse her agency from voting, knowing that her charity was receiving $145 million from nine investors in the deal?
Those questions apparently did not occur to Cristina Alesci and Laurie Frankel.
Also, in addition to the $145 million being funneled to the Clinton Foundation before the CFIUS approval, why was a Kremlin-backed bank bankrolling a $500,000 speech in Moscow for Bill Clinton while his wife led the Russian reset? As even the progressive New Yorker magazine put it, “But there is a bigger question: Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State?” Shockingly, CNN Money fact-checkers Alesci and Frankel make no mention of the Kremlin-backed $500,000 Clinton speaking payment.
Nor did CNN’s crack “fact-checkers” mention that the Clinton Foundation received $2.35 million in hidden, undisclosed donations from Ian Telfer, the former head of the Russian government’s uranium company—another fact that multiple liberal news outlets have confirmed.
Indeed, as Bloomberg, Washington Post, New Yorker, ABC News, New York Times, and myriad other Establishment media have all confirmed, Clinton Cash’s most explosive revelations are accurate.
Apparently, CNN’s Cristina Alesci and Laurie Frankel are among the last to know. |
NYT's article...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=1
| Quote: |
The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
Photo
Frank Giustra, right, a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton, left. Credit Joaquin Sarmiento/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.
The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.
Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.
In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” he added.
American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations. But foreigners may give to foundations in the United States. In the days since Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy for president, the Clinton Foundation has announced changes meant to quell longstanding concerns about potential conflicts of interest in such donations; it has limited donations from foreign governments, with many, like Russia’s, barred from giving to all but its health care initiatives. That policy stops short of a more stringent agreement between Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration that was in effect while she was secretary of state.
Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.
When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today’s. The Obama administration was seeking to “reset” strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.
GRAPHIC
Donations to the Clinton Foundation, and a Russian Uranium Takeover
Uranium investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s office was involved in approving a Russian bid for mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States.
OPEN GRAPHIC
Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.
“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.”
A Seat at the Table
The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.
The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.
Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE
Opinion Editorial
Candidate Clinton and the Foundation APRIL 23, 2015
Opinion Public Editor's Journal
An ‘Exclusive’ Arrangement on a Clinton Book, and Many Questions APRIL 23, 2015
RECENT COMMENTS
Carol B April 25, 2015
Brian Fallon is right. No one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as...
Joseph Scott April 25, 2015
In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence...
Van Snyder April 25, 2015
This underscores the fecklessness of canceling the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) program in 1994, when it was an inch from completion, at more...
SEE ALL COMMENTS
Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.
If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007.
Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared.
Photo
Ian Telfer was chairman of Uranium One and made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. Credit Galit Rodan/Bloomberg, via Getty Images
Still, the company’s story was hardly front-page news in the United States — until early 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.
(In a statement issued after this article appeared online, Mr. Giustra said he was “extremely proud” of his charitable work with Mr. Clinton, and he urged the media to focus on poverty, health care and “the real challenges of the world.”)
Though the 2008 article quoted the former head of Kazatomprom, Moukhtar Dzhakishev, as saying that the deal required government approval and was discussed at a dinner with the president, Mr. Giustra insisted that it was a private transaction, with no need for Mr. Clinton’s influence with Kazakh officials. He described his relationship with Mr. Clinton as motivated solely by a shared interest in philanthropy.
As if to underscore the point, five months later Mr. Giustra held a fund-raiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in the natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 million. The star-studded gala, at a conference center in Toronto, featured performances by Elton John and Shakira and celebrities like Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Robin Williams encouraging contributions from the many so-called F.O.F.s — Friends of Frank — in attendance, among them Mr. Telfer. In all, the evening generated $16 million in pledges, according to an article in The Globe and Mail.
“None of this would have been possible if Frank Giustra didn’t have a remarkable combination of caring and modesty, of vision and energy and iron determination,” Mr. Clinton told those gathered, adding: “I love this guy, and you should, too.”
But what had been a string of successes was about to hit a speed bump.
Arrest and Progress
By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr. Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom, had just been arrested on charges that he illegally sold uranium deposits to foreign companies, including at least some of those won by Mr. Giustra’s UrAsia and now owned by Uranium One.
Publicly, the company tried to reassure shareholders. Its chief executive, Jean Nortier, issued a confident statement calling the situation a “complete misunderstanding.” He also contradicted Mr. Giustra’s contention that the uranium deal had not required government blessing. “When you do a transaction in Kazakhstan, you need the government’s approval,” he said, adding that UrAsia had indeed received that approval.
Photo
Bill Clinton met with Vladimir V. Putin in Moscow in 2010. Credit Mikhail Metzel/Associated Press
But privately, Uranium One officials were worried they could lose their joint mining ventures. American diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks also reflect concerns that Mr. Dzhakishev’s arrest was part of a Russian power play for control of Kazakh uranium assets.
At the time, Russia was already eying a stake in Uranium One, Rosatom company documents show. Rosatom officials say they were seeking to acquire mines around the world because Russia lacks sufficient domestic reserves to meet its own industry needs.
It was against this backdrop that the Vancouver-based Uranium One pressed the American Embassy in Kazakhstan, as well as Canadian diplomats, to take up its cause with Kazakh officials, according to the American cables.
“We want more than a statement to the press,” Paul Clarke, a Uranium One executive vice president, told the embassy’s energy officer on June 10, the officer reported in a cable. “That is simply chitchat.” What the company needed, Mr. Clarke said, was official written confirmation that the licenses were valid.
The American Embassy ultimately reported to the secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton. Though the Clarke cable was copied to her, it was given wide circulation, and it is unclear if she would have read it; the Clinton campaign did not address questions about the cable.
What is clear is that the embassy acted, with the cables showing that the energy officer met with Kazakh officials to discuss the issue on June 10 and 11.
Three days later, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom completed a deal for 17 percent of Uranium One. And within a year, the Russian government substantially upped the ante, with a generous offer to shareholders that would give it a 51 percent controlling stake. But first, Uranium One had to get the American government to sign off on the deal.
Among the Donors to the Clinton Foundation
Frank Giustra
$31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more
He built a company that later merged with Uranium One.
Ian Telfer
$2.35 million
Mining investor who was chairman of Uranium One when an arm of the Russian government, Rosatom, acquired it.
Paul Reynolds
$1 million to $5 million
Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger. Later helped raise $260 million for the company.
Frank Holmes
$250,000 to $500,000
Chief Executive of U.S. Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011.
Neil Woodyer
$50,000 to $100,000
Adviser to Uranium One. Founded Endeavour Mining with Mr. Giustra.
GMP Securities Ltd.
Donating portion of profits
Worked on debt issue that raised $260 million for Uranium One.
The Power to Say No
When a company controlled by the Chinese government sought a 51 percent stake in a tiny Nevada gold mining operation in 2009, it set off a secretive review process in Washington, where officials raised concerns primarily about the mine’s proximity to a military installation, but also about the potential for minerals at the site, including uranium, to come under Chinese control. The officials killed the deal.
Such is the power of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The committee comprises some of the most powerful members of the cabinet, including the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state. They are charged with reviewing any deal that could result in foreign control of an American business or asset deemed important to national security.
The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation; the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.
Instead, it concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources. While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves, according to Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.”
“The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking about it,” said Mr. Katusa, who explores the implications of the Uranium One deal in his book. “It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.”
When ARMZ, an arm of Rosatom, took its first 17 percent stake in Uranium One in 2009, the two parties signed an agreement, found in securities filings, to seek the foreign investment committee’s review. But it was the 2010 deal, giving the Russians a controlling 51 percent stake, that set off alarm bells. Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern. Two more began pushing legislation to kill the deal.
Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, where Uranium One’s largest American operation was, wrote to President Obama, saying the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.”
Photo
President Putin during a meeting with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko, in December 2007. Credit Dmitry Astakhov/Ria Novosti, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
“Equally alarming,” Mr. Barrasso added, “this sale gives ARMZ a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.”
Uranium One’s shareholders were also alarmed, and were “afraid of Rosatom as a Russian state giant,” Sergei Novikov, a company spokesman, recalled in an interview. He said Rosatom’s chief, Mr. Kiriyenko, sought to reassure Uranium One investors, promising that Rosatom would not break up the company and would keep the same management, including Mr. Telfer, the chairman. Another Rosatom official said publicly that it did not intend to increase its investment beyond 51 percent, and that it envisioned keeping Uranium One a public company
American nuclear officials, too, seemed eager to assuage fears. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote to Mr. Barrasso assuring him that American uranium would be preserved for domestic use, regardless of who owned it.
“In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the export of uranium for use as reactor fuel,” the letter said.
Still, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.
Undisclosed Donations
Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of state, the White House demanded that she sign a memorandum of understanding placing limits on the activities of her husband’s foundation. To avoid the perception of conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign government donations, the foundation was required to publicly disclose all contributors.
To judge from those disclosures — which list the contributions in ranges rather than precise amounts — the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating.
Photo
Uranium One’s Russian takeover was approved by the United States while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times
But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians. With the Russians offering a special dividend, shareholders like Mr. Telfer stood to profit.
His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.
The Clinton campaign left it to the foundation to reply to questions about the Fernwood donations; the foundation did not provide a response.
Mr. Telfer’s undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal: “It wasn’t the goal to buy the Wyoming mines. The goal was to acquire the Kazakh assets, which are very good,” Mr. Novikov, the Rosatom spokesman, said in an interview.
Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One.
The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences.
Renaissance Capital analysts talked up Uranium One’s stock, assigning it a “buy” rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was “the best play” in the uranium markets. In addition, Renaissance Capital turned up that same year as a major donor, along with Mr. Giustra and several companies linked to Uranium One or UrAsia, to a small medical charity in Colorado run by a friend of Mr. Giustra’s. In a newsletter to supporters, the friend credited Mr. Giustra with helping get donations from “businesses around the world.”
Photo
John Christensen sold the mining rights on his ranch in Wyoming to Uranium One. Credit Matthew Staver for The New York Times
Renaissance Capital would not comment on the genesis of Mr. Clinton’s speech to an audience that included leading Russian officials, or on whether it was connected to the Rosatom deal. According to a Russian government news service, Mr. Putin personally thanked Mr. Clinton for speaking.
A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?” But whether it actually does is another question. And in this case, there were broader geopolitical pressures that likely came into play as the United States considered whether to approve the Rosatom-Uranium One deal.
Diplomatic Considerations
If doing business with Rosatom was good for those in the Uranium One deal, engaging with Russia was also a priority of the incoming Obama administration, which was hoping for a new era of cooperation as Mr. Putin relinquished the presidency — if only for a term — to Dmitri A. Medvedev.
“The assumption was we could engage Russia to further core U.S. national security interests,” said Mr. McFaul, the former ambassador.
It started out well. The two countries made progress on nuclear proliferation issues, and expanded use of Russian territory to resupply American forces in Afghanistan. Keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon was among the United States’ top priorities, and in June 2010 Russia signed off on a United Nations resolution imposing tough new sanctions on that country.
Two months later, the deal giving ARMZ a controlling stake in Uranium One was submitted to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for review. Because of the secrecy surrounding the process, it is hard to know whether the participants weighed the desire to improve bilateral relations against the potential risks of allowing the Russian government control over the biggest uranium producer in the United States. The deal was ultimately approved in October, following what two people involved in securing the approval said had been a relatively smooth process.
Not all of the committee’s decisions are personally debated by the agency heads themselves; in less controversial cases, deputy or assistant secretaries may sign off. But experts and former committee members say Russia’s interest in Uranium One and its American uranium reserves seemed to warrant attention at the highest levels.
Photo
Moukhtar Dzhakishev was arrested in 2009 while the chief of Kazatomprom. Credit Daniel Acker/Bloomberg, via Getty Images
“This deal had generated press, it had captured the attention of Congress and it was strategically important,” said Richard Russell, who served on the committee during the George W. Bush administration. “When I was there invariably any one of those conditions would cause this to get pushed way up the chain, and here you had all three.”
And Mrs. Clinton brought a reputation for hawkishness to the process; as a senator, she was a vocal critic of the committee’s approval of a deal that would have transferred the management of major American seaports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates, and as a presidential candidate she had advocated legislation to strengthen the process.
The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these matters did not rise to the secretary’s level. He would not comment on whether Mrs. Clinton had been briefed on the matter, but he gave The Times a statement from the former assistant secretary assigned to the foreign investment committee at the time, Jose Fernandez. While not addressing the specifics of the Uranium One deal, Mr. Fernandez said, “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”
Mr. Fallon also noted that if any agency had raised national security concerns about the Uranium One deal, it could have taken them directly to the president.
Anne-Marie Slaughter, the State Department’s director of policy planning at the time, said she was unaware of the transaction — or the extent to which it made Russia a dominant uranium supplier. But speaking generally, she urged caution in evaluating its wisdom in hindsight.
“Russia was not a country we took lightly at the time or thought was cuddly,” she said. “But it wasn’t the adversary it is today.”
That renewed adversarial relationship has raised concerns about European dependency on Russian energy resources, including nuclear fuel. The unease reaches beyond diplomatic circles. In Wyoming, where Uranium One equipment is scattered across his 35,000-acre ranch, John Christensen is frustrated that repeated changes in corporate ownership over the years led to French, South African, Canadian and, finally, Russian control over mining rights on his property.
“I hate to see a foreign government own mining rights here in the United States,” he said. “I don’t think that should happen.”
Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.
Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines.
The “no export” assurance given at the time of the Rosatom deal is not the only one that turned out to be less than it seemed. Despite pledges to the contrary, Uranium One was delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange and taken private. As of 2013, Rosatom’s subsidiary, ARMZ, owned 100 percent of it.
Correction: April 23, 2015
An earlier version of this article misstated, in one instance, the surname of a fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is Peter Schweizer, not Schweitzer.
An earlier version also incorrectly described the Clinton Foundation’s agreement with the Obama administration regarding foreign-government donations while Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state. Under the agreement, the foundation would not accept new donations from foreign governments, though it could seek State Department waivers in specific cases. It was not barred from accepting all foreign-government donations.
Correction: April 30, 2015
An article on Friday about contributions to the Clinton Foundation from people associated with a Canadian uranium-mining company described incorrectly the foundation’s agreement with the Obama administration regarding foreign-government donations while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Under the agreement, the foundation would not accept new donations from foreign governments, though it could seek State Department waivers in specific cases. The foundation was not barred from accepting all foreign-government donations.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2016 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why anyone would trust her, I have no idea.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/04/undeterred-by-fbi-investigation-obama-to-campaign-with-hillary/
| Quote: |
On Tuesday, for the first time in U.S. history, a sitting American president will campaign with a presidential candidate who is the subject of an FBI investigation.
President Obama will stump with Hillary Clinton in Charlotte, North Carolina. The pair were scheduled to appear in Wisconsin last month after Obama formally endorsed his former secretary of state, but those plans were scrapped after Muslim terrorist Omar Mateen attacked a gay nightclub in Orlando.
Obama’s decision to campaign with Clinton suggests that the he and the White House believe that the Justice Department will not indict Clinton. The FBI opened an investigation into Clinton’s use of a private server last year after “Top Secret” emails were found on the device.
The presumptive Democratic nominee was interviewed for three-and-a-half hours on Saturday at FBI headquarters. The interrogation occurred several days after Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, had an unannounced private meeting with Bill Clinton.
The meet-up has led to accusations that Lynch and the former president were discussing the FBI investigation, the results of which Lynch will review before issuing the final decision regarding indictment.
Adding to growing suspicion over potential conflicts of interest, The New York Times reported this weekend that Hillary Clinton is considering keeping Lynch on as attorney general if she is elected president. (RELATED: Report: Clinton Is Considering Keeping Loretta Lynch As Attorney General)
The White House has repeatedly insisted that Obama has not been apprised of developments in the investigation. Despite those claims, he and Vice President Joe Biden have not refrained from downplaying Clinton’s decision to use a personal email account hosted on the private server.
Just hours after FBI investigators interrogated Clinton on Saturday — a development which was first reported by The Daily Caller — CNN reported that law enforcement sources said that charges are not expected against her in the case.
The network later clarified that that determination may change depending on Clinton’s statements during the FBI interview.
Obama is reportedly eager to hit the campaign trail, mostly so that he can go after presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump. Obama held off on endorsing a Democrat for president until after Clinton won California’s June 7 primary.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2016 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I hope so...
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/04/wikileaks-releases-clinton-war-emails/
| Quote: |
WikiLeaks has released 1,258 of Hillary Clinton’s emails in relation to the Iraq war, preceding the British Chilcot report on the conflict set to be released later this week.
WikiLeaks tweeted a link to their email archive from their official Twitter page today. Wikileaks appears to have a substantial amount of information on Clinton, having already released a large archive of Clinton’s emails earlier in the year. Breitbart has previously reported on Julian Assange’s claims that Google is complicit in the managing of Clintons online media campaign.
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/749927529457352704
Released only a week after Bill Clinton’s meeting with Attorney General, Loretta Lynch and a day after Huma Abedins admission that Hillary Clinton had burned daily schedules, the contents of Hillary’s released emails, containing multiple interactions between Clinton and multiple white house officials, could be extremely damaging to Clinton’s current presidential campaign.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously stated that he has multiple leaks in store for Clinton and, as a free speech fundamentalist, believes that a Clinton presidency could be damaging.
“Of course, when she is in power…she is a problem for freedom of speech. We know what she is going to do. She made the chart for the destruction of Libya—she was involved in the process of taking the Libyan armory and sending it to Syria” said Assange in a video posted to YouTube.
With considerable criticism of Hillary’s work as Secretary of State and her recent comments expressing her regret at voting for the Iraq war, these leaked emails could be a source of insight into the presumptive Democratic nominee’s approach to foreign policy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/the_second_amendment_is_the_first_domino_in_the_toppling_of_the_bill_of_rights_.html
| Quote: |
The political world erupted again this morning when the FBI unexpectedly held a press conference to announce that it would not be recommending criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for the mishandling of classified information on her private email server.
Most observers will no doubt pay attention to the headline – no charges – but the FBI’s statement hardly cleared Clinton of any wrong-doing.
Instead, FBI Director James Comey laid into Clinton for 15 minutes as “extremely careless” and skewered popular talking points Clinton often used to defend herself.
Here are the 6 most damning revelations from Comey’s statement.
It turns out her emails did contain classified information, though she insisted they did not.
110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.
Her behavior, while apparently not criminal, was “extremely careless.”
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
Any reasonable person in Clinton’s position would have known that what she was doing was wrong.
There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
It’s possible that “hostile actors” could have hacked into her email system, although they found no direct evidence that it happened.
Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
Most people would face some sort of administrative punishment for what Clinton did.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
There is evidence that Clinton broke the law, although the FBI feels there is not enough evidence to move ahead with criminal prosecution.
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
The left will breathe a sigh of relief that Clinton is no longer facing criminal prosecution. But James Comey- the sitting director of the FBI – publicly laid out the case that Clinton endangered U.S. intelligence assets with her reckless judgment. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I get why people are upset about the email issue, but to think that government servers are necessarily much more secure doesn't strike me as an at all persuasive argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2016 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article87827607.html
| Quote: |
BY DAVID LIGHTMAN
The mixed FBI judgment on Hillary Clinton’s email practices – that she’d shown extreme carelessness in her handling of classified information but not enough to merit criminal charges – left Democratic Party loyalists in a familiar place: relieved, exasperated and yet hopeful, with fingers crossed, that once again the Clintons had won.
It was another chapter in what’s now a 25-year-old saga that has seen Hillary and Bill Clinton survive controversies that usually end political careers. Think Bill Clinton’s denials of an extramarital affair early in his 1992 campaign for the presidency or his 1998 impeachment after the separate Monica Lewinsky dalliance exposed him to obstruction-of-justice claims.
Yet he wound up completing his term in 2001 with a 66 percent Gallup approval rating and his wife had been elected to the Senate.
The email mess that came to the public’s attention a year ago had been a weight around Hillary Clinton that she couldn’t shake, not with attempts at humor or lengthy explanations. Now it’s left to voters to settle whether the finding by FBI Director James Comey that no criminal charges are merited will put an end to the controversy.
In focus groups in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Florida throughout this year, McClatchy found that the emails kept coming up among undecided voters. While most people were not familiar with the emails’ contents, they thought this much: They were stark evidence that Clinton was arrogant and untrustworthy.
The question now: Does Comey’s exoneration counter that view, even though the FBI found that Clinton and her aides “were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information”?
FBI director recommends no criminal charges in Clinton email probe
FBI director James Comey announced Tuesday that he recommends no charges in the Hillary Clinton email probe. However, Comey said there's evidence that Clinton and her aides were "extremely careless" in the handling of classified information. The recommendation comes days after the FBI interviewed the Democratic presidential candidate about her use of a private email server as secretary of state.
C-SPAN
Democratic insiders were nearly universal in their praise for the FBI’s recommendation of no charges.
“Most voters will see this as Secretary Clinton doing 67 mph in a 65 mile zone and the officials say, ‘No ticket,’ ” said Bob Mulholland, a Chico, California-based Democratic consultant and convention superdelegate for Clinton.
Reaction from rival Bernie Sanders and his backers was largely muted. National Nurses United, one of the Vermont senator’s most vocal supporters, had no comment. Sanders himself had no statement, and he was tweeting about trade and environmental change in the immediate hours after the FBI announcement.
Sanders has been wary of sharply criticizing Clinton over the email controversy, calling it a “very serious issue.” His focus is on affecting the party platform, which party officials will be writing later this week.
To most Democrats, the announcement ends the threat of having a presidential candidate in legal jeopardy.
“No more dealing with the cloud of an FBI investigation into her server hanging over her or the drip drip of bad news,” said Doug Thornell, managing director of SKDKnickerbocker, a political consulting firm that specializes in Democratic campaigns.
Comey, though, left skeptics with plenty of fodder: Notably, that 110 emails sent or received on Clinton’s private server contained classified material. He said seven of those were classified at one of the highest possible levels, Top Secret/Special Access Program.
“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position . . . should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation,” Comey said.
That sort of finding is likely to hurt the former secretary of state. “It plays right into the perception that Clinton is not trustworthy,” said Tobe Berkovitz, a former media consultant who’s now an associate professor of advertising at Boston University.
That’s especially true with a segment of voters that David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, calls the “haters” – the roughly 1 in 5 people who dislike both Clinton and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
Forty-four percent of them were undecided in a recent Paleologos poll.
aleologos thinks that many of those “haters” were Republicans who were having trouble warming to Trump. As Republicans maintain a drumbeat of criticism of Clinton, pounding away at the idea that she can’t be trusted, Trump might benefit, he said.
“People who dislike Trump aren’t as deeply rooted” in their opinion as those who dislike Clinton, Paleologos said.
Republicans were eagerly playing to that audience Tuesday. GOP Chairman Reince Priebus said the findings “confirm what we’ve long known: Hillary Clinton has spent the last 16 months looking into cameras deliberately lying to the American people.” And Republican calls for a special counsel went unheeded.
The email controversy, though, might have another unpredictable result in this year of surprises: boosting support for third-party candidates. Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, a former governor of New Mexico, is averaging 7.4 percent support in national polls, according to the RealClearPolitics average. Green Party candidate Jill Stein is at 3.9 percent.
he more the Republicans pounce, and the more the Clinton emails are discussed, “what you’re going to get is more disgruntled voters,” said Berkovitz of Boston University.
That’s why, he figured, “This could be a boost for everybody.”
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2016 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.weeklystandard.com/could-hillary-clinton-qualify-for-security-clearance-today/article/2003152?utm_source=newsletters&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily+Digest
| Quote: |
Could Hillary Clinton Qualify for Security Clearance Today?
The State Department won't say.
12:06 PM, JUL 06, 2016 | By JERYL BIER
FBI Director James Comey delivered a litany of damaging findings Monday from the bureau's investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of personal email while serving as secretary of state. Not only did Clinton violate numerous security protocols, but many of the statements made by Clinton and her surrogates regarding her email have turned out to be untrue.
Nevertheless, Comey announced the FBI would not recommend filing criminal charges in the care, though he did allow that "consequences" may very well be appropriate in a different context. "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences," Comey said. "To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions."
Based on the FBI's findings that Mrs. Clinton was "extremely careless" with "sensitive, highly classified information", if the former secretary of state were to apply for security clearance today, would she qualify? The State Department won't say.
When asked, State Department spokesperson John Kirby replied, "I'm not going to comment on the FBI's findings or its recommendations. Nor am I going to engage in hypothetical speculation."
Director Comey's references to "consequences" and "security or administrative sanctions" likely refer to governmental guidelines on eligibility for access to classified information. The state department, where Clinton served, includes the guidelines on its website. Section K deals with concerns regarding handling protected information.
Notably, when addressing "conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying", the guidelines stress that national security violations may be disqualifying "regardless of whether it was deliberate or negligent." Comey's statement said that "seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received" and that "any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position... should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."
Based on the FBI's findings, a review of the conditions cited in Section K of the guidelines that may raise disqualifying security concerns reveal that Clinton violated more than half. Despite the violations, the state department declined to say whether or not the former secretary would now be able to pass a security screening.
In any case, if Hillary Clinton wins the election in November, she will receive daily briefings on the most sensitive and top secret national security matters as Commander-in-Chief, and no security clearance will be necessary.
he full text of Section K from the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information from the State Department website is reproduced below:
Guideline K:
Handling Protected Information
33. The Concern. Deliberate or negligent failure to comply with rules and regulations for protecting classified or other sensitive information raises doubt about an individual's trustworthiness, judgment, reliability, or willingness and ability to safeguard such information, and is a serious security concern.
34. Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
(a) deliberate or negligent disclosure of classified or other protected information to unauthorized persons, including but not limited to personal or business contacts, to the media, or to persons present at seminars, meetings, or conferences;
(b) collecting or storing classified or other protected information in any unauthorized location;
(c) loading, drafting, editing, modifying, storing, transmitting, or otherwise handling classified reports, data, or other information on any unapproved equipment including but not limited to any typewriter, word processor, or computer hardware, software, drive, system, gameboard, handheld, "palm" or pocket device or other adjunct equipment;
(d) inappropriate efforts to obtain or view classified or other protected information outside one's need to know;
(e) copying classified or other protected information in a manner designed to conceal or remove classification or other document control markings;
(f) viewing or downloading information from a secure system when the information is beyond the individual's need to know;
(g) any failure to comply with rules for the protection of classified or other sensitive information;
(h) negligence or lax security habits that persist despite counseling by management;
(i) failure to comply with rules or regulations that results in damage to the National Security, regardless of whether it was deliberate or negligent.
35. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:
(a) so much time has elapsed since the behavior, or it happened so infrequently or under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(b) the individual responded favorably to counseling or remedial security training and now demonstrates a positive attitude toward the discharge of security responsibilities;
(c) the security violations were due to improper or inadequate training. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
