Next time you read Newsweek, and hesitate for one millisecond to ponder whether the article you’re reading right now MIGHT possibly have a slant to it. Consider this:
Kurt Eichenwald writes for Newsweek. And, he seems to be a very, very, angry person. Previously he wrote for Vanity Fair and Washington Times. Seems to be a common theme in this guy’s life. Even though great trouble was made to insure that pre-existing conditions were covered in “Trumpcare”, Kurt ignores all that, blindly assumes what we have now works, and wishes all Republicans who voted for to experience the nightmare of losing a loved family member.
The man is clearly a partisan asshole. Is Newsweek going to do anything about his unfounded hate speech?
I would have linked to his hate-speech fueled rants on his twitter, but he deleted them. Instead he refers back to them even though he didn’t have the actual guts to keep them. So, you can go check him out if you want. If he’s truly got one speck of personal respectability in him he’ll come out and apologize once everyone realizes that Trumpcare isn’t what they’ve been sold by their morally devoid leaders. I’d love to track how that develops. Wanna?
( And no, I’m not going to put a picture of this asshole on my blog. )
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.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
Let me see if I can help.
She tells you the intent. Her argument, “convenience”. She didn’t want to have a separate phone. That’s who wants to be President of the United States of America. Someone who doesn’t want to be bothered with carrying a separate phone and is more than willing to disregard federal law in order to do it.
Some would argue that a lawyer, having got her break prosecuting Richard M. Nixon:
Would have a greater appreciation for obstructing federal law regarding personal communications.
Or, one could assume she’s not that stupid, as I do. And, recognized that is she used a single device for communications, and it was on a federal server, ALL of her communications would have been subject to Freedom of Information Act laws. However, if they were on her own private server, they in theory, would not. I don’t think she was the least bit concerned with her communications regarding her official business being accessed. But, her private emails might have presented a real problem.
Listening tour: Hillary Clinton and Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saudi al-Faisal in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in March 2012Hassan Ammar/AP
In 2011, the State Department cleared an enormous arms deal: Led by Boeing, a consortium of American defense contractors would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns over the kingdom’s troublesome human rights record. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to an International Business Timesinvestigation released Tuesday.
That’s the kind of stuff Hillary definitely would not want subjected to FoIA if she was peddling influence in her official capacity for her own personal gain.