Clintonian Mendacity: She’s lying about her confusion with classification markings

The FBI finally decided to release their notes about Clinton’s testimony to them regarding her clear violation of federal law on handling classified material. Of course, they did it on a Friday afternoon when they hope no one’s watching.The particular bit that I find most galling is the bald-face lie about her confusion as to what the classification markings in the e-mails meant. 

According to the files, Clinton claimed to have relied on the judgment of her aides and other officials to handle classified material appropriately. She even told investigators — when asked what the “C” marking meant before a paragraph in an email marked “Confidential” – that “she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order.”

In a word, ladies & gentlemen: horseshit. In my career I’ve been through those briefings – which are refreshed in semi-annual mandatory training sessions, by the way – and there is absolutely no doubt that they went over this material with her. She’s lying. Through. Her. Teeth.Not that the FBI cared, of course. Attorney General Lynch and Director Comey had already decided they weren’t going to enforce the law where Her Majesty was concerned. 

Clinton is cavalier with classified information to the point that it’s not even a concern to her whether people die. She will continue to act with that same disregard if she’s the President and it will be with every agency’s personnel on the line, not just the State Department. Any of you with active-duty military in the family should understand that this woman, who has already demonstrated this level of mendacity, will be just as careless with the information that protects the lives of your soliders,sailors, airmen, and marines. Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted with control of our military and she is unfit for the presidency.

Hillary Clinton is a liar and a clear and present danger to the security of this nation. She does not deserve your support.

Events this week have moved swiftly. I haven’t had the chance to weigh in on the matter of Hillary Clinton skating away on the charges of mishandling classified data so here we go. I have mentioned this before but I will say it again because it’s pertinent to my commentary: I work for a company that does business with US Government agencies. I have held government clearances for the last dozen or so years and I have had access to and training regarding classified information. That training covers how to handle it, what’s allowed in e-mail and what systems are required when transmitting that data. In other words, I know precisely and from 1st-person perspective what Hillary Clinton was required by law to do.

Hillary Clinton is a criminal. The fact that a man who is, at best, a coward and oath-breaker who placed political considerations ahead of enforcement of the law or, at worst, a corrupt cop decided to deliberately ignore the actual law, as passed, does not obligate me to willfully blind myself to the truth that any honestly objective person can see. She violated 18 U.S.C. 793(f) and, Director Comey’s unilateral rewrite of the law notwithstanding, her intent is completely irrelevant to that fact. Comey’s boss met with the husband of the woman under investigation just days before Comey’s announcement in a clear, obvious, unethical conflict of interest. The fix was in and they let her skate. Doesn’t change the fact that any reasonable person can see she violated the law. She’s a crook. But she got off with her high-powered friends’ help. (I would urge my fellow Americans who hold clearances to not try that at home. The rule of law doesn’t apply to Clinton and her pals but they’ll make damn sure it applies to you.)

I know all of the left/MSM news agencies are trying their best to rush you along – nothing to see here! – but Comey’s performance didn’t begin and end with “Nope! No charges!” as much as they want you to believe it did. Comey’s appearance at a Congressional hearing confirmed every point he made in the original announcement. Let’s review, shall we?

Beyond doubt, Hillary is a liar and a cheat. At every stage she lied about what she had done and only admitted it when backed into a corner. There was no classified data on her e-mail server. That’s a lie and she knew it at the time she said it. She only did it so she could have 1 device to use instead of 2. That’s a lie and she knew it at the time she said it. She had multiple devices and she bloody well knows it. The system was secure. That’s a lie. Virtually everything she said about this has been a lie and a lie spoken repeatedly. And do not allow yourself to be deceived further by her friends in the media: she did all of this so she could avoid her legally-mandated accountability to you. And she’s standing up there on the podium telling you she’ll fight for your interests and serve you faithfully. How the hell can you even remotely believe that given what we now know without question she has done?

Beyond doubt, she has no care at all about safeguarding the information critical to this nation’s defense and interest. Several of you have sons and daughters, husbands and wives in the military and intelligence services. Some of you are in the State Department, potentially even looking at deployment to embassies and consulates overseas. She’s been extremely careless – that’s the FBI talking, by the way – in handling the information that will keep our military and intel personnel safe. How can she be trusted to act prudently with the lives of these people on the line? How can any of us willfully put her in the position to be making those decisions, given how careless she is? Do we not care?

Beyond doubt, she has no care at all about following the law and will do and say whatever she likes whenever she wills. She has demonstrated that she can not be trusted to faithfully execute the laws; her oath of office would be worthless the second she spoke it. She has shown she cares nothing for the rule of law. Your voice, beyond your pulling the lever for her in the voting booth, is of no concern to her. Your interests are meaningless drivel to her, beyond being something she can manipulate you with.

Why would any American be a part of installing that into this nation’s leadership? She is untrustworthy in the extreme. Careless in the extreme. Her words cannot be trusted, she will not hold herself accountable to the American people once in office and she will continue the current efforts to divide us all and keep us at each other’s throats while she enriches herself and her friends at our expense. She does not deserve your support.

Motives do matter: Obama finally engaged but why, really?

Howard Kurtz writes a piece in which he describes a more serious media covering a war president. He mentions Republican Peter King’s comment basically saying that we should all get together and support Obama. “What’s past is behind us,” he said. While I most certainly approve of taking the needed actions to eliminate a threat to peaceful people, I can’t simply dismiss the actions of the President leading up to this engagement nor ignore the obvious motives.

President Obama simply couldn’t be bothered to take any of this seriously. Until, that is, his polling numbers started falling like a brick knocked off the Washington Monument. Am I to believe that a man who casually dismissed the enemy as the “JV team” barely a month ago suddenly reassessed the threat all on his own? Sorry, don’t think so.

Obama may be doing the right thing, now, and I support the strikes against the Islamic State terrorists wholeheartedly, but he’s only doing it because he and his fellow Demand in office are trying to forestall the impending electoral damage heading their way. And as soon as that’s handled, they’ll go weak-kneed again.

Drones are not evil, they’re tools.

I have to admit to being a bit mystified about some of the debate ongoing about the use of drones in military, tactical situations. I have heard the alarm – hysteria, almost – over the use of drones and the attempt to turn them into the boogeyman of our era. Rand Paul famously said, during his 13-hour filibuster on the Senate floor, “No American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.” Clearly not, but is the drone really the issue? I mean, if the same American were shot dead by a police officer when no charge existed and no indication were present that they were guilty of a crime, would we be OK with that? I don’t think so.

As in the debate on gun ownership, the drone isn’t the driving force, it’s the tool. Someone targets it, someone pushes the button authorizing it to engage its weapon systems, and that someone is the one responsible whether it’s a push of a button a continent away or the pull of a trigger at point-blank range. The issue is a matter of whether we’re OK with the idea that the President can unilaterally make a decision to kill an American citizen with no trial, no filing of charges, and no chance to confront his accusers. I shed no tears for terrorists who think blowing up a marketplace makes their point who get blotted out by a Brimstone missile. But when the target is an American citizen, my personal feelings aren’t the deciding factor. The Constitution is and the President has sworn an oath (yeah, I know – he doesn’t care that he did, but he did) to uphold it. He is required to treat Americans differently than enemy combatants on the battlefield. And that’s regardless of the weapon system he choses to use.

Budget framework gets cloture. Now we find out what's in it.

Apparently Nancy Pelosi ain’t the only one relying on the “we have to pass it so we can find out what’s in it” approach. After getting through a cloture vote in the Senate the word is coming out about one of the methods being used to get the deficit cuts Paul Ryan is touting. They’re cutting money out of military retirees’ cost-of-living increases.

I’m more than a little surprised about this. First, this framework winds up cutting less than the sequester would have and now it’s finding the cuts in military pensions? I’m having a hard time believing that was the place to cut back. Anyone look at the GSA’s convention funding lately?

DoD wants to retire the A-10 Warthog

With budget cuts being actual cuts for the military, DoD leadership has proposed to cut the A-10 Thunderbolt II, a.k.a. the “Warthog,” from the US arsenal. They claim that cutting the plane will save $3.9B a year and I’m not arguing that. What I am saying is that this is still a mistake.

The A-10 is a ground attack aircraft like no other. Designed explicitly to engage tanks (specifically Soviet tanks) in the 1970’s, this ship is the go-to asset for fast, accurate close-air support. It flew roughly a third of all combat sortees in Iraq and Afghanistan. During Desert Storm A-10’s were responsible for over 4000 enemy combat vehicles destroyed. In short, it is a very effective weapon system still relied upon by battlefield commanders today.

Adding to its allure: it’s cheap. It costs less than $10M a copy and can be maintained at a cost in the thousands per cycle as opposed to millions for other aircraft. By comparison, the aircraft touted as the replacement by the Pentagon is the F-35 Joint astrike Fighter. The F-35 costs $169M each and even the Pentagon concedes that it can’t match the A-10’s capabilities.

Part of the problem, here, is the same thing that has always hugged the Air Force: this plane is a relative slow mover in a high-speed-loving force and the nature of its mission is to take direction from grunts on the ground. But the fact of the matter is that the Warthog brings more to the mission than any other fixed-wing aircraft, is incredibly efficient at the task, and is far more cost-efficient than any other asset available. That’s the definition of a program you dona’t cancel

3rd Amendment case in NV

Well, you don’t run into this situation every day. Henderson, NV police are accused of violating the 3rd Amendment rights of a local family.

The Third Amendment, which forbids the “quarter[ing]” of “soldiers” in private homes in peacetime without the owner’s consent, is often the butt of jokes among lawyers, because it generates so little litigation. But the Amendment has come up in this ongoing Nevada case, along with the Fourth Amendment and state law claims

So the question that immediately comes to mind is whether the police qualify as soldiers under the Constitution. On its face, I would say no, but given the militarization of the police these days you could make the argument. Of course that might not be the real reason for advancing a 3rd Amendment case versus a 4th. Could be the notoriety of the approach is intended to garner wider attention?