I have previously written that recent disclosures over immunity deals with Clinton aides has seriously undermined the credibility of the FBI investigation into the email scandal and raises legitimate questions over the role of top ranking Justice Department officials in the closing of the investigation without criminal charges. Now a far more serious allegation has surfaced with the release of a FBI “302” that states that State Department Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy proposed a “quid pro quo” to convince the FBI to strip the classification on an email from Hillary Clinton’s server. The FBI agent reported the encounter as an effort to “influence” the FBI in return to giving the Bureau long-sought agent placements overseas. Such an offer is more than a standard inter-agency “horse trade.” If the agent’s account is accurate, it was an effort to influence a criminal investigation to protect a high ranking politician and, additionally, an effort to alter a key piece of evidence. The fact that such an effort would be simply brushed aside by the FBI is shocking in itself and again raises questions over Director James Comey’s pledge to pursue any possible charges with independence and vigor. The FBI and State Department, as discussed below, have insisted that there was nothing untoward in the discussions and there is a difference in factual accounts. That is all the more reason for congressional oversight and investigation in my opinion.
The notes from an interview with an unnamed FBI official concern the effort to de-classify a particular email marked “SECRET.” Such classified emails were very damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign. Despite her decision to not to use the expensive, secured system at the State Department, Clinton insisted in a Fox interview that “I take classification seriously.”
When asked about the finding that she sent classified emails, she objected to that take on the FBI findings: “That’s not what I heard Director Comey say. Comey said that my answers were truthful and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people.” She repeated that the emails found to be classified were “retroactively” classified, which is not true. However, Comey said that 110 of her emails contained information that was classified at the time she sent or received them. He also said that a smaller number emails had markings showing them to be classified. She added that “Director Comey said my answers were truthful and consistent with what I have told the American people.” However, Comey called her careless in her use of the personal server and the sending of these emails. He also directly contradicted her on the classification of the emails and the Washington Post gave Clinton “Four Pinnochios” for continued spin of the investigation and its findings.
Now we have this suggested quid pro quo from Kennedy described in the 302 to “pressure” the Bureau to drop the classification:
“[Redacted] indicated he had been contacted by PATRICK KENNEDY, Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the email’s classification in exchange for a ‘quid pro quo,’” the 302 states. “[Redacted] advised that in exchange for marking the email unclassified, STATE would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more Agents in countries where they are presently forbidden.”
Kennedy later headed a meeting on the classification issue with the FBI, the agent describes how someone asked if any of the emails are classified and the agent reported the following to his superiors: “Making eye contact with [redacted] KENNEDY remarked, ‘Well, we’ll see.’” The agent left no ambiguity over what the State Department was trying to do in “attempting to influence the FBI to change its markings.”
Kennedy did not leave it there and asked to effectively go over the head of the agent and was referred to Michael Steinbach with the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division. Kennedy “continued to pressure the FBI to change the classified markings on the email to unclassified . . STEINBACH refused to do so.”
Kennedy however persisted and sought to confirm that the FBI would not make any public statement. Shortly after being told that the Bureau would not reveal the information, Clinton publicly denied having sent classified emails on her server.
As a criminal defense lawyer, I find the 302 to be astounding. Can you imagine what would have happened if I pressured an agent to change a critical piece of exchange in a quid pro quo? I would have been immediately accused of unethical or charged criminally or both. Moreover, such an effort in a criminal investigation usually deepens the suspicion of criminal activity and gives the FBI leverage in pressuring witnesses on who was aware of the effort to pressure or influence investigators.
The role of the State Department in the various investigations has been subject to ongoing criticism of bias. This 302 should be a matter of focused congressional investigation. Any connection drawn between adding agents and stripping classification is facially improper. What is equally disturbing is the response of the State Department to simply dismiss any concerns over the 302.
What is also curious is the disconnect between the current FBI position and the 302. Here is what the FBI is now maintaining:
“The FBI determined that one such email was classified at the Secret level. A senior State Department official requested the FBI re-review that email to determine whether it was in fact classified or whether it might be protected from release under a different FOIA exemption. A now-retired FBI official, who was not part of the subsequent Clinton investigation, told the State Department official that they would look into the matter. Having been previously unsuccessful in attempts to speak with the senior State official, during the same conversation, the FBI official asked the State Department official if they would address a pending, unaddressed FBI request for space for additional FBI employees assigned abroad. Following the call, the FBI official consulted with a senior FBI executive responsible for determining the classification of the material and determined the email was in fact appropriately classified at the Secret level.”
The FBI insisted to Fox News that “[a]lthough there was never a quid pro quo, these allegations were nonetheless referred to the appropriate officials for review.” It is not clear what that means. Is the FBI basically saying that the 302 author made up or exaggerated his or her account. Clearly there was no quid pro quo in that the classification was not changed. However, that is not the concern. The concern is whether there was an attempted quid pro quo. The FBI seems to suggest that it was a FBI official who raised the agent issue first. That is important, but it raises still raises the question of why the two issues were discussed at the same time and whether Kennedy later made this linkage to an agent.
There is ample reason for Congress to exercise its oversight authority to find out the truth behind these allegations. Indeed, this is a classic matter for oversight. Congress is the critical check on the executive branch, particularly when agencies are accused of collusion or conflicts of interest. It is hard to imagine how Congress would just walk away from such an allegation without investigation and this should not be a partisan matter. Democrats and Republicans alike should want answers to whether a quid pro quo deal was suggested in a criminal investigation of high-ranking government and former government officials.
144 thoughts on “Quid Pro Quo: Top State Department Official Offered Deal To FBI If It Would Change Classification Of Clinton Emails”
The 1% has already decided Hillary (their puppet) is going to win….and they have the money & power to make sure of it. Why do you think all her messes are cleaned up for her?
It’s a pattern. Like the balanced budget scam. After four never mind eight years none of this Hillary stuff will remain. Papered over, lost then found documents whatever. Recall and if you get older copies of the Times Almanacs you will see the balanced budget was out of balance in every one of the eight years and that accounts for the offset of Jan 20 to Oct 1st under a predecessors budget at each end. I recall a 1.2 trillion dollar increase in national debt with a downward trend and a large one at the end and a short fall of 200 million during the best year. Actually one hulluva good stab but they had to lie about it. Cain’t hep themselves they had no silver spoon in their mouths.
Easy enough There were three budgets. The White House has it’s own budget office, The Congress has CBO. The he Treasury Department has the one that counts. . Then figue out how to juggle the time period. Annual, Fiscal Year Ot to September or Presidential Term Jan 20 to Jan 20 OR the overlap to Oct 1st. Point is pick the one that best suits your story for the day. Count on the media to cover it up and a later Presidency to correct the historical record.
Secondly do not forget the off budget items, the exclusion of the money paid into the Entitlement Programs such as Social Security and the Railroad Retirement Trusts replaced with IOUs or something really meaningless like ‘full faith and credit – the last a line from Article IV of the Constitution having nothing to do with finances per se. – and one really neat little final trick. T Bill offered a very short life but very high interest rate that would come due after the Clinton Presidency AND it’s spill over to Oct 1st creating a balloon payment in the successors Presidency. Those were sold after Bush was elected and before he took office.
Unemployment. Labor Force at the beginning and at the end . Used to be 0% mulligans. WWII ends 5% Clinton administration 10% subtraction off the top. But they all use it. 8% is actually 100% minus 10% and eight percent of that or 8% of 90% or 82% leaving true unemployment at 18%. Not counting those who fall off the end or adjustments to the initial Labor Force figures.
They all do it… both parties or both faces of the same party. Smoke and mirrors is alive and well and the old saying is figures can lie and liars can figure. Which brings up back to the worlds most famous serial outside of the middle east or the CCCP …Hillary Rodham Clinton.
And the gullible public is soooooo easy to fool. – all of the time.
PTSD is a real problem for victims because it can last a lifetime. A rape that occurred 2 months ago and one that occurred 6 years ago and one that occurred many years ago can still devastate a person’s life. Trying to minimize the effect of PTSD from Bill Clinton’s rape by saying it occurred a long time ago is very anti-woman. Further, it wasn’t just his rape but your candidate’s threats that have given her and other of Bill Clinton’s victims PTSD.
As you are trying to minimize harm caused by the Clintons, it becomes difficult to believe that you care really about PTSD after women are raped.
Bill Clinton has not been convicted of rape and neither has Trump. There are other types of sexual assaults and Trump’s numbers are clearly rising in that regard. You will see come election day that women of all back rounds will rise up against Trump.
Nice attempt to dodge the issue but you show the hypocrisy of Clinton’s supporters. This isn’t a numbers game. Your candidate has given other women PTSD by threatening them against speaking up about having been raped by her husband.
If the abuse of women was a real issue for you, you could not vote for Clinton-period. If people shouldn’t vote for Trump because he abused women, you shouldn’t vote for Clinton because she abused them as well.
Yes, Women that support Clinton are demonic, ill informed, bitchy, stupid, fat, low information, contemptuous feminazi hypocrites. I get the meme and guess what I’m with Her and so are a large majority of women. Have a good day. I am going to work this afternoon for a demonic progressive hypocritical lesbian democrat that is running for congress that has an excellent chance at beating a Trump supporter.
All your weird stuff here is just a way to keep from addressing the hypocrisy you are displaying. You claim that you care about women’s PTSD, but clearly you don’t. You care about winning an election. If you cared about women’t PTSD from rape or sexual assault or from being threatened by your candidate, then you could not, in good conscience support Clinton. It really is that simple.
It has nothing to do with being demonic, obviously you aren’t ill informed, I didn’t call you bitchy, stupid or fat or a feminazi. I do show why you are a hypocrite. I’m showing that you are making claims you really don’t believe in. All the other stuff is things you made up!
You just want Clinton to win. That’s all you should be claiming. As to caring about all women, including women harmed and given PTSD by Hillary Clinton, you pretty obviously don’t care. Have a good afternoon!
Clearly rising is a joke statement from sick mind. This isn’t about polics dumb ass it’s about how you women so easily dump your sisters for another slice of Cute Butt Clinton and lie about supporting your sisters. It isn’t about the two crap candidates you left wingers presented us with it’s about acting like decent people with some sense of morals, values,ethics and standards and it’s about the so called women’s movement is one big lie just like your four decades of lying about supporting women. At this point it doesn’t matter a bit who you sexist traitors support. It’s about you being a traitor to women and don’t think enlightened men have noticed. The best way to bring women is point out they don’t have to be victims especially to humanoids like you.
Get your mind out of the gutter and ask all those women you have mentally and emotionally and psychologically raped and victimized and really – seek some professional help. They don’t deserve you and neither does the rest of the country.
The only way to stop racism, sexism and bigotry is not condone it in any way, shape, form, fashion speech or written word and that goes for you fascist comments.
Jill is being nice. I don’t pull punches. You got what you asked for so don’t try to cover up your agenda. The greatest danger women face is turncoat traitors like you. Snakes in the grass is more like it.
Kirsten, Ignore that creep. He sounds like a dangerous threatening dude.
Not at all but I don’t put up with racist, fascist, sexist BS o personas con frijoles de tras. Si Dios es una mujer or hombre todos candidos van a desaparacer y nosotros empieza otra vez. Anti racist goes for those from England as well as Spain. If you can’t act like responsible citizens there is always the door. Si no entiende Alejandro necesita voy a escuela y mas tiempo in libros menos in puntos de seguridad.
Translation. I guess they left that out of your briefing. George Lykoff AKA Yoda who writes the rule books for the secular progressives. Shhhhh don’t tell them you will get in serious deep doo doo.
No problema. Soy civilizado.
So some bus company screwed up. She was not on the bus. More relevant is the fact that Trump is triggering PTSD in sexual abuse victims.
“She was not on the bus.”
Exactly! That’s the point of the story.
Fact? What facts? Conveniently timed by DNC but then they are determined to keep the story alive to cover up for the number one sexist enabler and attacker of her husbands victims making them her victims in the country. If anyone is being victimized it’s those poor weak women Hillary has victimized but all this crap – since the women’s movement has disavowed once again supporting their sisters in favor of another Clinton – has what to do with anything concerning election day? If this is what the DNC/RNC leftists think is important why vote for them at all. And for your sex enabler/serial predator supporters who abandoned your sisters to support the “Clintons, progressive socialism and the rest of that garbage for shame for shame for shame.
You haven’t learned a thing since the 90’s You deserve what you asked for and what you sentenced women in general too. Typical fascists.
It’s symbolically funny!
It’s really interesting that Clinton said it wasn’t her bus and her followers all say she wasn’t on the bus, meaning, I guess it doesn’t matter. Actually, it does matter to the people of that town. (And it is a rather consistent pattern for Clinton to lie.)
As for Trump, I agree that the PTSD of his sex abuse victims matters. I wonder if you will allow the PTSD claims of Bill’s victims who were threatened by Hillary to matter? I’m going to say I doubt it, but I wish at least some of you had some integrity about claims of PTSD of victims of your candidate’s threats.
Juanita Broderick’s alleged assault by Bill Clinton occurred in 1978. Some of Trump’s alleged assaults occurred in 2005. These assaults seem to be resonating more with younger women. All PTSD claims should be validated.
Trump’s ‘alleged assults’ consist of him kissing someone or touching their thigh. Broaddrick gave an account of forcible rape.
I had to put this in because it’s so fitting:
I read this story yesterday with a photo of Hillary and Bill getting off the bus. The photo and headline required no further explanation. 😉
Comey could save us a lot of time by giving us the
white washbroke-no-laws verdict before he does the investigation this time.
no wonder the most corrupt black president was never impeached, this congress is useless
The color of his skin has nothing to do with corruption. Bush and Hillary are white and corrupt.
What’s ‘corrupt’ about Bush?
Wow, I didn’t know GWB was black. Where did you find that out?
Frankly, I think the quid pro quo is not the entire story. Even if they are able to wriggle out of making an offer, it remains very clear that the State Department and Kennedy in particular was trying to pressure the FBI to change a key piece of evidence in the investigation.
No, it does not remain clear “that the State Department and Kennedy in particular was trying to pressure the FBI…” The email does not indicate that any pressure was being brought to bear, only that Kennedy sought a quid pro quo.
Maybe the FBI should have accepted the offer…..at least they would have gotten something out of the investigation besides a black eye. Seriously, Comey’s attempt to whitewash this incident is not surprising, given his earlier decision not to refer HRC for prosecution. Both were political decisions and the only issue in my mind is what Comey is getting or hoping to get in exchange for selling out his agency.
There is aGod Alejandro and Trump has to win. You have bought into the lies of the left who tell you they will give you and your family a better life. Life has not gotten better unless you are a Clinton. You trust her she exploited the poor in Columbia, do your homework. She is so above the law. I am not opposed nor is Trump opposed to immigrants. Just come over her legally. The government created us Americans to fight against each other. We should love each other and pray Trump becomes President otherwise we will all be standing in the bread lines. She wants us to become a one world government. Trump wants us to prosper. American will be great again if we vote for him. Do not believe the media, or Obama, or crooked Hilary.
If Trump does win, I sincerely hope he gives you (and all of us by extension) what you suggest.
No, pam, there is most probably not a God. If Trump wins it will not be because of divine intervention. If he loses it also will have nothing to do with a divine being. But since you believe there is a God, and are presumably praying for God to intervene and give the win to Trump, I’ll be curious to see how you spin this when Trump loses. Will it be a sign to you that God does not share your view of what is best for the nation; that he wanted Clinton to win? Surely, by your manner of reasoning about God’s interest and involvement in our politics, surely a Clinton victory will be the result of God’s choice that she rather than Trump is what the nation needs.
“Surely, by your manner of reasoning about God’s interest and involvement in our politics, surely a Clinton victory will be the result of God’s choice that she rather than Trump is what the nation needs.”
Who’s to know; a victory by either of these horrendous candidates may simply be God giving this nation what we deserve, not what we need.
If God is a she, Trump will surely lose. 🙂
Not if she’s one of those females who supports Trump, like the one who wore the shirt at a Trump rally that read “Trump can grab my…” with an arrow pointing down toward her genitals.
How could the God of the left be a woman when it’s name George Soros? Not that’s not correct, Progressives are secular. So…How could the God of the Left be a man or a woman when it’s name is Yoda?
Yoda? You need to watch better science fiction.
“It’s sort of a disease when you consider yourself to be some kind of a god, but I’ve grown more comfortable with it now that I can live it out”.
– George Soros
What Patrick Kennedy did for Hilary is not a shock to most of us female, American’s we see that if you are a Clinton you are given a free pass, she is corrupt and this is another example of how dishonest she and her friends are. She is an “Eletis” , she is remote from how hard working people live and how she and her husband and their foundation have explored the poor. She and her people like Kennedy could care less for the American people. Kennedy is just one of her many corrupt partners. There is also so much corruption in the media and in Washington. Secretary Kennedy should resign., yet in my heart I do not believe any of the left will ever do the right thing. I feels like the right are just as bad except for Trump who is a decent person and this media and the left have done everything to smear his campaign. Patrick Kennedy, He should be made to resign, this country is a mess. The left want open borders, they are greedy and want a one world government.. My prayer is clean up WASHINGTON before it if too late. Get rid of Paul Ryan, Obama, Hilary, IRS and the FBI and get back to what our country was built on and that was truth and honesty.
Powerfully said. Thanks and here’s hoping for better times.
Trump is not a decent person. That you think he is only reveals that you know little or nothing about his history. He has cheated people, engaged in unethical and immoral treatment of people, told numerous lies lies in his life, and associated in his business dealings with known felons, criminals and mobsters. This is all in the public record for anyone who is intellectually honest enough to investigate. It is all available to examine in the many biographies that have been written about Trump.
Furthermore, Trump is even further removed from the “hard working people” than the Clintons. He has never been a member of this demographic a single day in his life. In fact, he has repeatedly cheated a great many people who are part of the “hard working people” group. He cares even less for these people. Oh, he speaks a good con game about wanting to represent them, but anyone familiar with his character knows this is only to achieve his own success and glory.
It is so easy to throw around the charge that there is “so much corruption in the media and Washington” without actually laying out the evidence-based case to support this claim. I’m not saying there is no corruption in Washington. I am challenging your implication that the level of corruption is at the magnitude you seem to be insinuating.
The media has done nothing to smear Trump. They have merely reported on his actions, words, behaviors. Trump is a narcissist who exhibits many, if not all, of the signs of sociopathy. I’m not surprised that so many people are fooled by him. Afterall, this is one of the abilities of a sociopath: the ability to charm people into believing he is that which he is not. (http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html)
No, the left does want a one-world government. There may be some on the left who want this, but this is certainly not true of all, or even most of who are on the left side of the political spectrum. I am a liberal, progressive on many issues, close to a social democrat in my political leanings. But I do not seek a world government. I do expect the United States to be a part of a world community. Afterall, we are not the only nation on the planet. We do have to get along with each others. We do need to learn to cooperate with each other in order to provide for as much peace and prosperity as we can achieve. The less nations cooperate with one another, the less peace and prosperity there is for everyone, not to mention the less security there is for everyone.
This country was built on “truth and honesty.”? What fantasy, fairy-tale world do you inhabit? You certainly are not describing the real history of this nation. Sure, there has been truth and honesty. But it has co-existed from the beginning with lots of deceit, dishonesty, and abuse. This country was built on truths as well as lies. It was built on honesty as well as dishonesty. You need to escape that world of the imagination you seem to be living in and join us all here in the real world.
“No, the left does want a one-world government.”
This should read No, the left does not want a one-world government.”
Peltonrandy, Hillary’s not corrup?. The media presstitutes are not favoring Clinton? Not hiding her corruption? Not smearing Trump?
You would have made a good line judge at a John McEnroe tennis match years ago. And this is what John would have said to you:
First, the question about smearing Trump. Trump is not being smeared. Very little in the way of factual inaccuracies have been reported about Trump.
Press favoring Clinton? There is some of that. But I think this of little importance. The press is also reporting all the negative stuff about Clinton, particularly about every new release of emails. What Clinton corruption are you claiming the media is hiding? Do you know something the rest of us don’t? Every alleged scandal and corruption has been reported and written about by the MSM. If there is any alleged corruption or scandal that has not been reported, then please, by all means, inform me of what it is?
“Hillary’s not corrupt?” She has been charged numerous times by pundits and others in the public with corruption. I’ve read a great deal about her, including several biographies. There may be some truth to charges of corruption, though I believe that much of what has been said about her over the years has been exaggerated and distorted. Of one thing I am convinced: she is no more corrupt than Trump. Anyone who has bothered to explore Trump’s history — discoverable through the many biographies written about him, and the public record — can’t but help – if they are being intellectually honest — arrive at the conclusion that Trump has engaged in corruption pretty much his entire adult life.I would have preferred much different candidates. I voted for Sanders. But Trump and Clinton are the choices with which we are stuck. (Don’t bother brining up third party candidates since I think a vote for either of them would only be a vote that increases the chances of Trump winning, a nightmarish outcome in my opinion.) Both candidates have serious character flaws. Both candidates have exhibited over the years poor judgement. So for me, it comes down to their stated policy positions and their public service record. I trust Trump far less than I trust Clinton. I agree with little of what Trump wishes to do, including his economic plan, his tax plan, his immigration plan, his proposals to deal with terrorism, etc. Clinton is not the ideal candidate, but Trump is even less so. I believe that Trump’s stated policy positions would be, in my opinion, an absolute disaster for the country. Clinton’s plans and proposals, if enacted, would be much better for the nation, and more importantly much better for the middle class, working people, minorities and just about every other demographic.
As for John McEnroe, I never carried much for him. Always thought him to be a loud-mouthed jackass. Could care less what he might think about me and my views. That McEnroe might have said to me “Are you serious?”, is hardly much of a rebuttal given that I don’t think very highly of his opinion. But all this said, I think it more likely that McEnroe would have directed this comment at you, given that he is a registered Democrat and tends to vote liberal. He has already declared that he will be voting for Clinton (http://www.tennisworldusa.org/news/news/Tennis_Stories/36884/john-mcenroe-donald-trump-or-hillary-clinton-this-is-who-i-ll-vote-for-/).
HRC, Obama, Bush I & II, etc all want a one world government so you are correct it is not confined to the Left. These 1%ers are in favor of a corporate coup d’tat and are pushing the TPP to make it happen. They all belong to an elite group that will remain untouched as inequality continues to grow and the gap widens ever further.
Across the pond the Brits voted for Brexit – their last attempt to free themselves from the overlords in Brussels – whether it will actually happen or not remains to be seen.
In Austria there was supposed to be a re election this month due to voting discrepancies, but mysteriously there is a problem with the glue on the mail in ballots. The Green Party candidate is for TTIP. The majority of Austrians do not want this “trade” agreement. They have already experienced loss of sovereignty through EU laws and were forced to accept 90,000 mostly unvetted immigrants. Austrians have experienced an increase in violent crime including rape by men from Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan.
Yes, we should get along with other nations (maybe stop bombing them for regime change that favors the MIC) and trade is a good thing, but not at the expense of our own nation and state’s rights. NAFTA, CAFTA and KORUS have not been successful for the majority of working class Americans. Controlling our borders is essential for national security.
This is the second time I have encountered this unsubstantiated claim of yours that NAFTA, CAFTA, KORUS and other trade deals infringe on states rights. Just what the hell are you talking about. How do these trade deals have anything to do with states rights? Substantiate this claim with evidence or do yourself a favor and stop reinforcing the view beginning to take shape in my mind that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
@peltonrandy, I found the answer to your question in a relatively quick Google search.
Thanks. I’ll look it over. Perhaps Autumn will also thank you for providing what should have accompanied the original claim Autumn made.
Sigh, The International State Dispute System, ISDS, is common knowledge, like asking for a link explaining what a modern trade deal is. You look foolish telling others they live in a fantasy and no one owes you any links just because you are being obnoxious.. You might want to tone it down a little.
Sorry, Investor State Dispute System is more common though International is occasionally used.
Gaa! NOt my day. Investor State Dispute Settlement.
Anyway, the dispute settlement system has become common knowledge for anyone who has done even the most basic research on the subject. It provides enormous power to corporations to levy fines against member states (national and local) for future profits considered lost with no upper limit and no recourse by elected representatives or judicial input.
Either way it is not common knowledge. Most things given that urban myth status aren’t except in narrowly defined groups or areas. It is better taken as a two word excuse for not having facts on hand or sources or cites and meant to give a false plus valuation to some statement or another.
Common would mean generally known across the entire population. Literate and illiterate, educated and uneducated unless. and only unless one of those modifiers was employed.
In objectivism we look on that statement as a portion of Radical Reasoning and with good reason. It saves thinking, reasoning and any form of coherent acceptable debate – something like PC Definitions. Objectively speak neither useful nor likely to useful and most often lacking ethical values if used.
It’s use…without proper foundation speaks for itself as to the validity of the user.
Whether it is or is not common knowledge, when a person makes a claim and is called upon to provide the evidence and/or citations to substantiate that claim, basic rules of argumentation require the person to do so. It is always the responsibility of the person making a claim to provide the evidence in support of that claim.
Now you have made the claim that knowledge of and about ISDS is common. I was not aware of it. Of course, this does not mean it is not common knowledge. So provide evidence that it is common knowledge. A poll, perhaps, that indicates what percentage of the population is familiar with ISDS. Without such evidence your statement is simply another example of an unsubstantiated claim being presented as a fact.
It is peculiar that you think it obnoxious behavior to require a person to substantiate a claim. Are you in the habit of engaging in arguments where you make claims and then fail to provide the evidence, offering instead such lame rationalizations as its common knowledge?
If you are going accuse others of What fantasy, fairy-tale world do you inhabit? or not knowing, just what the Hell are you talking about., on a subject, then it is up to you to do a minimum of research on your own before making accusations. And if you don’t think your way of putting it is obnoxious, you need help and this is probably not the right place to get it.
As to your asinine assertion that, when a person makes a claim and is called upon to provide the evidence and/or citations to substantiate that claim, basic rules of argumentation require the person to do so. , 1) Who called upon anyone to provide evidence? (you just hurled an insult question that any idiot should have answered for him or her self before being so insulting – which no one in their right mind would respond to). 2) That anyone has a right to demand links of others is only defensible if the information is not generally available. Otherwise comments would grind to a pedantic halt with everyone insisting on links from everyone else.
Shouldn’t have to demand nor even ask. A well thought out and presented point of discussion should as a matter or course include that information in consideration of those reading but part of the discussion for one good reason. Those that fail to ‘automatically’ back up their assertions automatically are considered weak, suspect and the comment is put down to unsubstantiated personal opinion.
It’s also ill mannered. What it is?
A common trait in subjectivist based talking points straight out of Radical Reasoning where facts not only do not count but often are not available to support their opinion whichis not personal but the slant of the day from party headquarters. Any reasonably educated thinking, reasoning individual recognizes that.
For example. The left is attacking the elderly and treats them as a target.
Or….The inflation rate caused by massive borrowing automatically triggers a devaluation of the buying power of the dollar aka dollar value decreases but the debt still has to be, if not paid serviced with increase interest. The final step is repudiating the debt or refusing to pay it. So far Econ 101 or common sense.
What debt was refused and repudiated?
The government caused (current administration for sure and the one before it) does not count loss of dollar value in COLA computations.
COLA then is becomes the debt that is refused.
The elderly cannot in many cases go back to work so all this $15 an hour crap doesn’t help much.
The cost of medicine has shot up as a result of ACA. They get hit again.
What triggered this last round? Manufactured crisis namely the government sponsored housing bubble fiasco using the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buyout of toxic housing loans and the the ethanol requirement which ran the price of food stocks up for people and animals Dodd Franck Bill. on housing.
Democrats buying votes in Iowa etc for another cause. And ethanol is subsidized and most of that goes to huge Agricorps not the workers.
So far that is an accurate depiction of a whole sale attack on the group least able to defend themselves and least able to take the hit of devalued dollar power. The Elderly.
What is it missing . Other than common sense and a personal and honest look at prices, unemployment etc.
There’s no cites, or sources other than ‘look at what your dollar buys compared to 16 years ago lately?
Most will be thinking of their own grandparents at this point an their own parents nearing retirement and then what happens to me if this continues and a 20 trillion dollar debt and a massive second increase to fund various promised programs.
Many are going to say huuhh how did that happen? I didn’t take Economics 101.
But the elderly know they are under attack….and they are the prime target
Still cites and sources are not included.
Price of gas 2000 about 95 cents per gallon. High point since then was around $4.00 per gallon. Now it’s around $2.00 but paid in devalued dollars. What’s the price of of a meal in a fast food? No more 25 cent burger days at Mickey D’s. What’s the price of groceries? What’s caused the proliferation of Dollar Stores?
Whose least able to pay the extra?
Who wants to massively increase the national debt?
Who isn’t getting a COLA adjustment?
Who depends most heavily on a bit of extra income form the major source of employment and part time employment for the elderly? – WalMart.
Which corporations are under attack by the left more than any other? Walmart and MacDonalds etc. never mind adding in lost jobs at the beginning end of the working years. Part time teen agers …
The subject is far more important than how many women Hillary has victimized but then they too will get old and she’s graduated to victimizing there retirement accounts as well.
just to tie it in.
So far accurate but it lacks cites and sources most would ask about EXCEPT those who don’t deal in facts and footnotes and see no value in them. So this one is for you leftists.
Why are you and your leaders attacking not only women and minorities but the elderly as the prime target?
Ralph, don’t forget Jill Stein – Bernieorbusters are going for her — and many for Trump.
As a progressive, a part of the fourth branch, and a leftist supporter of a left wing candidate can you reasonably expect a constitutional solution? Silly I’ll accept but as a start point. The offer on it’s face if tried in court in a Constitutional Republic would have that individual and is rabbi in a penitentiary.
The answer is the offer was made in violation of the law which constitutes the intent and the act. But only in a Constitutional Republic. It doesn’t require any comment nor any action from the other side.
You mean I try to bribe a judge, and the judge does not accept the bribe, that my offer of the bribe might get me in trouble?
“Seems totally silly” to some.
That’s called ‘the law.’ Making an offer is intent and action which constitute a bribe. Like offering a judge, juror or witness a bribe. The chargeable offence does not require a response from the second party who is the intended victim. Thinking about bribing a juror or offering a bribe to a police officer to not write a traffic ticket is the same thing. The exception is the money is free speech law when you launder campaign donations through a a no personal contact PAC or LLC to a candidate, elected, appointed or hired official etc. Only thing thee illegal is direct contact. For a while.
I was just making the point that the quid pro quo doesn’t have to be “consumated” to make it illegal or improper.
It’s sort of like if I’m stopped for speeding and I hand my license to the officer with a $100.00 bill behind it. When he gives the $100.00 back, am I not guilty of bribery of a public officer?
Here’s the federal statute, 18 USC sec. 201(b): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201
There’s no attempted bribery in this statute. It’s the offer that counts.
FBI Director and de facto Attorney General Richard Comey must be thinking that this is Ted’s boy’s Chappaquiddick and that no reasonable prosecutor would charge in a case like this because it would be too hard to prove intent.
I can’t wait to hear from Tre Gowdy. 🙂
Are we without the rule of law (WROL) yet?
Pretty close but then only some faceless bureaucrat in the Fourth Branch of Government knows for sure. the Congress as a legislative branch is purely decorative but Gowdy has a valid point in stating emphatically We Make Laws. That’s what they are supposed to do but how do you do that without reading it or better yet writing it first?
Had the so-called deal gone through, what law would have actually been violated?
I don’t think the public knows the subject or contents of the classified material in the email(s) Kennedy wanted declassified, or reclassified.
Since the email(s) in question were under evidentally under subpeona when Kennedy tried to change their classification, there could be an issue of tampering with evidence/ obstruction of justice.
Even IF Kennedy committed a crime, we’ll probably learn that “no reasonable prosecutor” would ever take action against him.
For that you have to ask the bureaucrats in charge of National Security who actually write the law itself. That is an ongoing process. One thing for sure the people who ran that portion of the operation had their fourth point of contact in a sling if they did not ensure some one of that level was covered and their aforementioned covered as well. It would be in more than one CYA report if nothing else.
So saying I didn’t know that meant their was a direct lie or a firewall had been built around the whole thing which would take enough people to constitute a conspiracy. most people would be more afraid of losing their job to a simple inspection and would never let something like that go without putting paper in a file somewhere reporting the circumstances and any direct contact or the fact of a fire wall which allowed no contact.
Or if we are on the subjective of bribery and offering a bribe which is the act and intent in one fell swoop. you would have to read that federal statute depending on how it’s being written or rewritten at the moment OR any number of State or local Statutes. It’s often found lumped in with ‘all public officials’ and ‘members of juries,’
Seems totally silly. If the classification was NOT changed, (no Quid) how can there be a pro Quo??
[…] The FBI seems to suggest that it was a FBI official who raised the agent issue first. That is important, but it raises still raises the question of why the two issues were discussed at the same time and whether Kennedy later made this linkage to an agent.
If the FBI official raised the agent issue in the same conversation as the issue of classification, then there is an implicit Quid Pro Quo that appears to be understood in one form or another on both sides; if not on the table, then in the making.
What you describe as in the making was actually never made. They may have started to mix the ingredients but never completed the recipe, let alone baked the cake, so to speak.
Obviously the basic concept of a criminal conspiracy eludes your addled brain.
Explain then exactly how what transpired constitutes a criminal conspiracy. For a criminal conspiracy to occur two parties must agree to commit a crime and at least one of the parties must take an action toward completion of that crime. In what way were these two conditions met?
Comments are closed.