New Disclosures on Benghazi

[davefoc]

It's listed in section 5:

The head of each Federal agency shall establish safeguards against the removal or loss of records he determines to be necessary and required by regulations of the Archivist.

Thank you for the response. Assuming that Clinton is guilty of some sort of crime associated with failure to comply with statutes/regulations that required her to save something, then presumably somebody (a specific person) must have done some deeming here and informed Clinton of what he had deemed. Or that person created some sort of specific regulation that was distributed to federal employees that would have given them a description of what records he had deemed appropriate for preservation.

The statute/regulation say it is the Administrator of General Services and the Archivist that is supposed to do the deeming. So who were they? What did they deem? and how was information about what they had deemed provided to Clinton?

 

[The Big Dog]

Hillary's "old Friend" Lie

The answer to one question was recently revealed in Clinton's belated production of documents: where did she ever get the idea that the attack spontaneous arose of a non-existent demonstration?

It turns out that got it from free agent intelligence operative/Clinton Family Foundation Sid Blumenthal:

"He was repeatedly plying her with dubious “intelligence” on Libya — much of which turned out to be false, but which she nonetheless passed on to State Department underlings."

Hillary tried to hire him into State, which hiring was vetoed by Obama, apparently because he was too big a scumbag.

So Bill put him on the Foundation's payroll, and did the job that the Obama's administration told her no.

By the way, he also seems to have been on several foreign agencies' payrolls too.

Thanks Hillary.

 

[RandFan]

The answerto one question was recently revealed in Clinton's belated production of documents: where did she ever get the idea that the attack spontaneous arose of a non-existent demonstration?

It turns out that got it from free agent intelligence operative/Clinton Family Foundation Sid Blumenthal:

"He was repeatedly plying her with dubious “intelligence” on Libya — much of which turned out to be false, but which she nonetheless passed on to State Department underlings."

Hillary tried to hire him into State, which hiring was vetoed by Obama, apparently because he was too big a scumbag.

So Bill put him on the Foundation's payroll, and did the job that the Obama's administration told her no.

By the way, he also seems to have been on several foreign agencies' payrolls too.

Thanks Hillary.

This is going to be better than Watergate. Do you think they saved the Lewinsky dress and the gun that killed Vince Foster?

 

[12AX7]

The answer to one question was recently revealed in Clinton's belated production of documents: where did she ever get the idea that the attack spontaneous arose of a non-existent demonstration?

It turns out that got it from free agent intelligence operative/Clinton Family Foundation Sid Blumenthal:

"He was repeatedly plying her with dubious “intelligence” on Libya — much of which turned out to be false, but which she nonetheless passed on to State Department underlings."

Hillary tried to hire him into State, which hiring was vetoed by Obama, apparently because he was too big a scumbag.

So Bill put him on the Foundation's payroll, and did the job that the Obama's administration told her no.

By the way, he also seems to have been on several foreign agencies' payrolls too.

Thanks Hillary.

Boom!

The smoking gun, right there.

Good work!

 

[applecorped]

The answer to one question was recently revealed in Clinton's belated production of documents: where did she ever get the idea that the attack spontaneous arose of a non-existent demonstration?

It turns out that got it from free agent intelligence operative/Clinton Family Foundation Sid Blumenthal:

"He was repeatedly plying her with dubious “intelligence” on Libya — much of which turned out to be false, but which she nonetheless passed on to State Department underlings."

Hillary tried to hire him into State, which hiring was vetoed by Obama, apparently because he was too big a scumbag.

So Bill put him on the Foundation's payroll, and did the job that the Obama's administration told her no.

By the way, he also seems to have been on several foreign agencies' payrolls too.

Thanks Hillary.

The Scott Brown of Democrats, Martin O'Malley, has joined the race. Hillary will lose ground again to an upstart.

 

[barehl]

The statute/regulation say it is the Administrator of General Services and the Archivist that is supposed to do the deeming.

No, you are reading it wrong. It says, "required by regulations of the Archivist." In other words, the head of the agency has to make certain that the Archivist can do his job as required by regulation. I can show you the relevant section for the Archivist whose job is mainly about maintaining, cataloging and publishing the regulations themselves. There is no authority given to the Archivist about determining what is or is not important.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

I'm curious. Have you ever had to load a C-130 for hot insertion? These aircraft have no protection. A single RPG can destroy one. The normal procedure would be to first secure the area using Apache or Cobra attack helicopters. However, there were none within range. The second possibility would be sending either A-10 or Harrier aircraft. I don't think any of these were available either. Your last resort would be doing recon with fighters. Was a fighter recon mission ordered?

The DOD has claimed that there were no other assets that could have been brought to bear in any reasonable time frame. I have no reason to doubt this, although, if true, that is a scandal in itself. The DOD has not adequately addressed the failure to send the special forces team, in my opinion. A six-man security team from Tripoli was sent to Benghazi. Why couldn't a special forces team from Croatia (and subsequently Italy) be sent?

It sounds like your argument is that they should have been sent in blind with no knowledge of threat levels and then they would have had to make their own way from the airport to the consulate. Well, no, because you've already admitted that the ambassador was dead and the fighting over at the consulate long before they could have arrived. And, you've stated that the fighting at the annex was also over. So, the negligence was that they weren't sent in blind in case of a second attack at the annex. Do you realize how tenuous this argument sounds?

The timeline shows that the decision to not send them was made even before the attack on the Annex. Was the decision made that it was too dangerous for them, or instead that the attack was over and that there was no reason for them to go? If the latter, then the decision makers were wrong. Even after the 2nd attack, it would have been wrong to assume the attacks were over, although, in the event, that was the last attack.

So preventing a Molotov cocktail is impossible but stopping an RPG is trivial? Did you really just say this?

I have no idea what you're referring to here. The "consulate" was completely sacked, the ambassador was killed, and sensitive materials were lying unprotected amid the ruins. To do that takes a bit more than a Molotov cocktail or an RPG.

 

[davefoc]

No, you are reading it wrong. It says, "required by regulations of the Archivist." In other words, the head of the agency has to make certain that the Archivist can do his job as required by regulation. I can show you the relevant section for the Archivist whose job is mainly about maintaining, cataloging and publishing the regulations themselves. There is no authority given to the Archivist about determining what is or is not important.

OK, my question still stands though. I am trying to figure out what makes Clinton a criminal with regards to the records that she didn't keep or didn't turn over. Somebody some place had to establish what stuff was supposed to be kept and how and when it was supposed to be turned over. Who was that and how was that information conveyed to Clinton? And how do we know that Clinton didn't comply? Or if she did comply how do we know that she didn't comply in a timely way so she is still a criminal?

16.5 might be the best source here since he seems convinced of Clinton's malevolent ways. But I would certainly appreciate any specifics you can provide with regard to this.

 

[barehl]

The DOD has claimed that there were no other assets that could have been brought to bear in any reasonable time frame. I have no reason to doubt this, although, if true, that is a scandal in itself. The DOD has not adequately addressed the failure to send the special forces team, in my opinion. A six-man security team from Tripoli was sent to Benghazi. Why couldn't a special forces team from Croatia (and subsequently Italy) be sent?

The standard deployment time for Rangers is 18 hours. DEVGRU and Delta Force are not much faster.

The timeline shows that the decision to not send them was made even before the attack on the Annex. Was the decision made that it was too dangerous for them, or instead that the attack was over and that there was no reason for them to go? If the latter, then the decision makers were wrong. Even after the 2nd attack, it would have been wrong to assume the attacks were over, although, in the event, that was the last attack.

So, after admitting that these men would have been sent in blind and would have had to make their way from the airport to the annex through unknown opposition, you are still insisting that it was negligent not to send them?

I have no idea what you're referring to here. The "consulate" was completely sacked, the ambassador was killed, and sensitive materials were lying unprotected amid the ruins. To do that takes a bit more than a Molotov cocktail or an RPG.

Of course you know what I'm talking about. You said that SoS Rice could not have prevented a Molotov cocktail but somehow SoS Clinton could have prevented an RPG attack. Logically, which of these would be harder to stop? Here's a hint: you have to get close enough to throw a Molotov cocktail; you don't to fire an RPG.

 

[barehl]

Somebody some place had to establish what stuff was supposed to be kept and how and when it was supposed to be turned over. Who was that and how was that information conveyed to Clinton?

I already quoted this from section 5:

The head of each Federal agency shall establish safeguards against the removal or loss of records he determines to be necessary and required by regulations of the Archivist.

This is clear; the determination is made by the head of the agency, namely, Clinton, herself.

And how do we know that Clinton didn't comply? Or if she did comply how do we know that she didn't comply in a timely way so she is still a criminal?

She obviously can't fail to comply with her own determination. I think 16.5 and perhaps you are under the mistaken assumption that congress can determine what is of national significance. It has no such authority.

16.5 might be the best source here since he seems convinced of Clinton's malevolent ways.

The best source of rhetoric, yes. But he doesn't seem to understand law and seems allergic to links or citations.

Also, someone in this thread should really get over the fact that even if Clinton did the worst possible job as SoS the only remedy would be firing her. Do you not recall that that was the remedy for FEMA director, Michael D. Brown, whose actions most would describe as criminally negligent.

 

[davefoc]

I already quoted this from section 5:

The head of each Federal agency shall establish safeguards against the removal or loss of records he determines to be necessary and required by regulations of the Archivist.

This is clear; the determination is made by the head of the agency, namely, Clinton, herself.


She obviously can't fail to comply with her own determination. I think 16.5 and perhaps you are under the mistaken assumption that congress can determine what is of national significance. It has no such authority.


The best source of rhetoric, yes. But he doesn't seem to understand law and seems allergic to links or citations.

Also, someone in this thread should really get over the fact that even if Clinton did the worst possible job as SoS the only remedy would be firing her. Do you not recall that that was the remedy for FEMA director, Michael D. Brown, whose actions most would describe as criminally negligent.

Thank you with being patient about my inability to comprehend simple English. OK, so it sounds like Clinton may not be a criminal after all. But it does seem like she was remiss as the person responsible for establishing safeguards against the removal or loss of records he determines to be necessary if she didn't do that. And if she did do that leaving her SoS job without turning over her job related emails seems like it would have been a technical violation of any reasonable safeguards she might have put in place?

 

[RandFan]

Thank you with being patient about my inability to comprehend simple English. OK, so it sounds like Clinton may not be a criminal after all. But it does seem like she was remiss as the person responsible for establishing safeguards against the removal or loss of records he determines to be necessary if she didn't do that. And if she did do that leaving her SoS job without turning over her job related emails seems like it would have been a technical violation of any reasonable safeguards she might have put in place?

What I don't get is this, after the Kenn Starr... (let's call it an episode), how on Earth could she not foresee this as a problem even if for appearances sake. I think she is very competent. I don't particularly like her but I respect what she did as SoS. My objections to her are due in part to my staunch conservative position when I held when I first learned about her. I'm honest enough to admit that.

Bottom line, so far, this "not a fan of Clinton", is underwhelmed to say the least as to her accusers. Still, I damn sure wouldn't bet that there is nothing there.

Take solace in the fact that the GOP will spend every last dime to find something to destroy her with. Hillary Clinton is going to replace Obama as the antichrist.

 

[sunmaster14]

The standard deployment time for Rangers is 18 hours. DEVGRU and Delta Force are not much faster.

A security team from Tripoli got to Benghazi airport in less than four hours. They were held up at the airport for over three hours, but they eventually got to the Annex in time to help repel the second attack.

So, after admitting that these men would have been sent in blind and would have had to make their way from the airport to the annex through unknown opposition, you are still insisting that it was negligent not to send them?

Once again, a security team from Tripoli was sent in blind, and although they waited at Benghazi airport to link up with a friendly Libyan militia, they got to the Annex in time to save it. No doubt they would have appreciated the help from those special forces soldiers in Croatia whom Panetta did not even order to deploy for well over two hours after the start of the first attack. I don't understand why a team in Tripoli can deploy so much faster. They didn't even have their own plane. They had to pay $30,000 to commandeer one.

Of course you know what I'm talking about. You said that SoS Rice could not have prevented a Molotov cocktail but somehow SoS Clinton could have prevented an RPG attack. Logically, which of these would be harder to stop? Here's a hint: you have to get close enough to throw a Molotov cocktail; you don't to fire an RPG.

No, I didn't know what you were talking because your point makes no sense. If somebody fired an RPG at the Benghazi facility gate and killed a Libyan guard, that would be similar to the kinds of things that happened on Condi's watch (or Colin Powell's watch). Instead what happened is that the facility was completely sacked, a US ambassador was killed, along with three other Americans, and it was actually a bit of a miracle that there wasn't a much larger bloodbath. If you want to argue that the security risks were worth the benefits from the mission there, that's another issue. But there's no question that the damage that was inflicted on our facilities was unique.

 

[sunmaster14]

I already quoted this from section 5:

The head of each Federal agency shall establish safeguards against the removal or loss of records he determines to be necessary and required by regulations of the Archivist.

This is clear; the determination is made by the head of the agency, namely, Clinton, herself.


She obviously can't fail to comply with her own determination.

Of course she can. And she did. She archived none of her emails. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Do you think it's possible that she considered none of her emails to be "Federal records" which needed to be "preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system."? Even if you're in doubt about that, doesn't the fact that she turned over 30,000 pages of emails last December, almost two years after she had left office, mean that such "Federal records" were in her possession and had not been "preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system?" I suppose you could argue that she was in violation of the law prior to December 2014, but now she's not, but I'm not sure that argument works so well in general.

<snip>

Also, someone in this thread should really get over the fact that even if Clinton did the worst possible job as SoS the only remedy would be firing her. Do you not recall that that was the remedy for FEMA director, Michael D. Brown, whose actions most would describe as criminally negligent.

I've never heard anybody accuse FEMA director Brown of being criminally negligent. Not literally anyway. I think it's very likely that if a drone from Sector 7G had done what Hillary did, he would not only have been fired, he would have been prosecuted.

 

[barehl]

OK, so it sounds like Clinton may not be a criminal after all. But it does seem like she was remiss as the person responsible for establishing safeguards against the removal or loss of records he Clinton herself determines to be necessary if she didn't do that.

She would have to be schizophrenic not to do that.

And if she did do that leaving her SoS job without turning over her job related emails seems like it would have been a technical violation of any reasonable safeguards she might have put in place?

Again, she would have to be schizophrenic.

The desperation of Republicans to discredit Clinton ahead of the election does not in any way override her previous determination as SoS.

 

[The Big Dog]

The DOD has claimed that there were no other assets that could have been brought to bear in any reasonable time frame. I have no reason to doubt this, although, if true, that is a scandal in itself. .

actually, avid readers of this thread know that the person responsible for coordinating world wide security in light of the 9/11 anniversary, never talked to to the head of Africa Command and had no assets in place to respond quickly.

He lost his job, right? No, Obama promoted him to run the CIA.

So that happened.

 

[The Big Dog]

Thank you with being patient about my inability to comprehend simple English. OK, so it sounds like Clinton may not be a criminal after all. But it does seem like she was remiss as the person responsible for establishing safeguards against the removal or loss of records he determines to be necessary if she didn't do that. And if she did do that leaving her SoS job without turning over her job related emails seems like it would have been a technical violation of any reasonable safeguards she might have put in place?

Yeah, except for all the FOIA requests and subpoenas she caused the State Department to violate.

Hey, sneering contempt for governmental transparency and conversion of US Government property? Technical violation, she will make a hell of a President.

 

[davefoc]

She would have to be schizophrenic not to do that.


Again, she would have to be schizophrenic.

The desperation of Republicans to discredit Clinton ahead of the election does not in any way override her previous determination as SoS.

Does this mean that you believe Clinton established safeguards against the removal or loss of records she determined to be necessary?

And somehow those safeguards allowed Clinton to not turn over any of the emails that she wrote as part of her official position as SoS?

The nuts and bolts of this scandal elude me. Presumably Joe Blow worker was required to use the state department email system and presumably every one of their emails was saved by the State Department IT workers.

However, it seems that Clinton and perhaps some other State Department employees could use their own email accounts and not turn over any of their emails to be archived? And this was compliant with the safeguards that Clinton (or the underling she delegated to) had established to prevent the removal or loss of records she (or the underling she delegated to) determined to be necessary?

 

[Foolmewunz]

you are of course completely correct.

"Or were you just trying to wrack up condescension points?"

Did he really write that? he just hit the maximum number points possible on the irony point meter!

Avid readers know.

 

[barehl]

A security team from Tripoli got to Benghazi airport in less than four hours. They were held up at the airport for over three hours, but they eventually got to the Annex in time to help repel the second attack.

Are you thinking that repetition will lend this more significance? You've already admitted that they didn't have recon and that they couldn't arrive soon enough to prevent the ambassador being killed. You keep pushing the idea that the negligence was in not sending forces to prevent a third attack that didn't happen. Why?

Once again, a security team from Tripoli was sent in blind

Which was a risk. Do you know what risk assessment is? Hint: it is routinely used for rescue in fire, avalanche, earthquake, and floods. The decision to not send people into a dangerous situation occurs everyday. For example, the Coast Guard does not send out rescue helicopters if the conditions are judged to be too hazardous...oddly though without any condemnation from you.

If somebody fired an RPG at the Benghazi facility gate and killed a Libyan guard, that would be similar to the kinds of things that happened on Condi's watch (or Colin Powell's watch). Instead what happened is that the facility was completely sacked, a US ambassador was killed, along with three other Americans, and it was actually a bit of a miracle that there wasn't a much larger bloodbath.

You are now mixing together prevention with effect. You are claiming that if the effect was greater then somehow, after the fact, the prevention should have been greater to compensate. Are you now arguing for the use of time machines?