White House: Clinton’s 'Signature' on Benghazi Docs Doesn't Mean She Knew of Them

(CNSNews.com) – The White House dismissed the signature of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on documents ignoring security concerns in Benghazi, calling it “protocol” for government official “signatures” to appear on documents they did not sign.

“It is standard protocol that cables originating from the department in Washington go out under the authority of the current Secretary of State with their signature, i.e. their name, typed at the bottom,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday, using his fingers for quote marks when he said “signature.” He continued. “This practice has been in place throughout this administration and across prior administrations, both Democratic and Republican.”

A report by five House committees released Tuesday found that Senior State Department officials, including Clinton, approved reductions in security at the facilities in Benghazi, Libya. The report cites an April 19, 2012, cable bearing Clinton's signature acknowledging a March 28, 2012, request from then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz for more security, yet allowing further reductions.

read more:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/white-house-clinton-s-signature...

Views: 1308

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Do they really think that we believe their bullshit? These people make me wish I smoked pot.

Semper Fidelis

Yes... and it is also protocol for those who permit others to sign or act for them to take the responsibility for DOC's with their signature on them... whether they signed them personally or authorized others to do so for them.  If they don't want to take responsibility for those DOC's with their signature on them... they had better withdraw their authorization to do so.

This is just another BS move to confuse those who are not familiar with the way big organizations including governments DELIGATE AUTHORITY... the fact, that others sign for you doesn't lessen your responsibility for what is being signed.   These two faced bums would have it both ways... they will take the credit for their signature being on documents they don't sign personally as long as they are credit worthy... but let one of the documents bring discredit upon them and they are quick to renounce any linkage to the documents.

It is time to IMPEACH a whole host of these opportunist and so called civil servants... these two faced political hacks who are never willing to take responsibility for their errors and poor policy.  But, we can not expect the House of Representatives to 'IMPEACH' anyone... as long as the chief opportunist and political hack is running the House... John Boehner must go.

That's RIGHT!

She is a LAWYER--what do lawyers preach??  "Read BEFORE you sign"  She is very good at covering her ARSE--possible deniability, remember" beyond a reasonable doubt" , that can be argued till Hell freezes over

Art... she would like us all to believe that she is not culpable for documents she authorized others to sign for her... but those with a modicum of common sense understands that when we give another permission and the authority to act for us... that we are also 'directly' responsible for the actions of those we entrust to sign for us.  She is doubly guilty of malfeasance... once for authorizing individuals who were incapable of acting for her and a second time for denying she has any responsibility for those she gave such authority to.

IT WON'T BE TOO MUCH LONGER BEFORE BARRY THROWS HER UNDER THE BUS ALSO . IT'S GETTING CROWDED UDER THERE .

If there are some things that I simply cannot abide, they are being lied to, and having my intelligence insulted.

This...er...'administration"...or, more tellingly, this gangster enterprise, manages to do both at least once each day.

Karma's quite something...and theirs will be a PIP!

"Cheaters never win"...and a day will come when this VERMIN will have tight-spots that NOTHING can save them from.

That pleases me, immensely...

After flying 2 million miles visiting 2 countrys a week, her age is really showing, especially from the backside.

What is it that drives her and husband(?) Bill to continue to inject themselves into the Amercian Body Politic?

Can't we give them a pension, just to go away? And now Bush-43 is back in the news, prepping us for Jeb Bush and his Presidential run. 

It was once standard protocol for public servants to tell the truth... it was once standard protocol for public servants to take responsibility for themselves and their staff's.  Honor and loyalty to the Constitution were once standard protocol... today, politicians are despicable liars whose character is no better than most common criminals... they simply get away with their lawlessness thru a system of corruption that extends from the White House into every seem and facet of the government...  every branch, including the Courts.

What a compelling argument for downsizing and Limiting gov't.  Documents are being signed by Clinton that endanger American lives and she doesn't have the time to read them. And nobody under her told her that she was giving away the candy store.

It may be true but it is definitely true that you don't give the authority to others to sign your name unless you trust them and are willing to accept the responsibility of the action. What happens in her department is her responsibility and what happens in his administration is his responsibility. So far the press has accepted the excuse that the action happened down the chain therefore it is not his responsibility. If we had a true opposition party they would be climbing all over this.

I agree with the Col., if we can get rid of the spineless John Boehner maybe we can get started on an impeachment process. But as long as Boehner is in charge of the House of Reps it will never happen. He is the repubs biggest problem.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service