Tag Archives: government

Obama Makes it Official

Posted on by
Reply

Laws don’t apply to him or his White House.

The White House, in a curiously timed move, is stripping a federal regulation that made a particular office subject to reporters’ records requests.

The rule change means the Freedom of Information Act will no longer apply to the White House Office of Administration. In turn, the policy will allow the Obama White House to reject records requests for that office, just as the last Bush White House did.

There’s that Democratic Morality, again. Someone else did it, therefor it’s OK to do it again.

And, just to drive the point home that Obama holds himself above the law, all it takes being a stroke of that pen of his:

In the notice to be published Tuesday, the White House said it was not allowing a 30-day public comment period, and so the rule will be final.

Clinton’s Emails

Posted on by
Reply

Ex-First Lady, one-time Senator, and woman who once sat in the Secretary of State’s chair had a press conference.

QUESTION: How could the public be assured that when you deleted emails that were personal in nature, that you didn’t also delete emails that were professional, but possibly unflattering?

And what do you think about this Republican idea of having an independent third party come in and examine your emails?

CLINTON: Well first of all, you have to ask that question to every single federal employee, because the way the system works, the federal employee, the individual, whether they have one device, two devices, three devices, how many addresses, they make the decision.

So, even if you have a work-related device with a work-related .gov account, you choose what goes on that.

In the first place, Madam, no, we don’t have to ask every single federal employee; we are, though, asking you. In the second place, even if every single federal employee made that error of judgment, it wouldn’t excuse yours. I notice, too, that you didn’t answer the question about how the public can be sure you didn’t also delete….

Nor is it lost on any of us that you ignored the second part of that question, too. Should we conclude, then, that you don’t want an independent evaluation?

Then there’s the apparent evidence tampering and the apparent violation of the Federal Records Act:

QUESTION: Did you or any of your aides delete any government-related emails from your personal account? And what lengths are you willing to go to to prove that you didn’t?

Some people, including supporters of yours, have suggested having an independent arbiter look at your server, for instance.

CLINTON: … I have no doubt that we have done exactly what we should have done. When the search was conducted, we were asking that any email be identified and preserved that could potentially be federal records, and that’s exactly what we did.

[T]he process produced over 30,000 you know, work emails, and I think that we have more than met the requests from the State Department. The server contains personal communications from my husband and me, and I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private….

It’s a much longer-winded obfuscatory answer; I’ve excerpted here. But notice: she never did get around to answering the question of deletion and how anyone would know. She did, though, say that the server she used to conduct government business will remain private, and she was clear that she and her people were the ones who determined the work relevance of what she kept and what she deleted. She also continued to elide the question of an independent evaluator’s judgment.

Finally, a small aside: 30,000 work emails works out to about 20 emails per day over her four-year tour—an unbelievably small amount of email traffic for a SecState.

Keep this in mind during the Primary Season, and if she passes through it, in the fall of 2016.

Crony Capitalism

Posted on by
Reply

Corporate fascism is, at its core, government management of each of the several economic sectors in a nation’s economy—agricultural, manufacturing, technology, communications, transportation, and so on. This management is executed by government through otherwise privately controlled business entities. De facto corporatism also is useful for reducing opposition and rewarding political loyalty.

Crony capitalism, on the other hand, is government influence of individual businesses in a nation’s economy—agribusinesses, automobile companies, alternative energy companies, telecommunications companies, and so on. Crony capitalism also is useful for reducing opposition and rewarding political loyalty.

How is crony capitalism different from corporate fascism? So far, the individual cronies can choose whether or not to play according to their government benefactors’ rules. So far.

An Open Letter

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Tom Cotton (R, AR) is the lead signatory, among 47 Republican Senators, to an open letter to the Iranian government regarding how the American government works.

An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution-the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices-which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate). Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics. For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then-perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

Unfortunately, the letter isn’t only addressed to the Iranians, it’s also, of necessity, aimed at President Barack Obama.

The letter can be seen here and here.

55,000 Emails

Posted on by
Reply

…on the wall, 55,000 emails.

Take one down, and read it out loud….

(Sorry)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that, with those 55,000 emails, she’s released all the relevant ones.

Couple things about that. 55,000 emails over a four year tour of duty works out to less than 40 emails per day. Split that in half (naively), and say 20 were from Clinton—or sent for her over her signature block—and 20 were to her. We’re supposed to believe that the Secretary of State of the United States only did 20 emailed conversations per day? Really? My wife, who works for a large-ish networking company, gets over 100 per day. Inbound.

The second thing is this: whose definition of “relevant?” These emails’ relevance were determined by Hillary “What difference, at this point, does it make” Clinton.

Hmm….