|
Do we know any details about the Iranian nuclear talks? I'm not cheering Bibi on, but it's hard to imagine bargaining with Iran with any sort of good faith.
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:30 |
|
|
Three Olives posted:I don't know where to put this but since Netanyahu is stirring poo poo with conservatives this week can someone explain a tiny little thing to me? I'd imagine the repeat calling for the destruction of israel by Iran's supreme leader might make some people a little uneasy. Especially since he's the leader or so many drat armed forces within Iran. And he's also the highest political and religious authority in Iran. The logic of the positive and negative consequences probably wouldn't matter to someone with the highest religious authority especially when they feel it's their duty to destroy a country.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
So Kerry made some news recently by publicly warning Bibi about disclosing details of the Iranian deal in his speech; I was watching Burnett on CNN interview a Israeli official about whether or not Bibi would use the details in his speech as way to derail the talks and the official all but said he would.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:The regulation is clear that records should always be stored on the agency system. "All's well that ends well" and other reasonable explanations determining whether or not a law has been broken aren't necessarily good indicators of a strong rule of law either. How is it that she can selectively pick what emails to turn over?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Not sure if this has been posted yet, but not only did Clinton use only her personal email during her time as Secretary of State, but she ran her own email server out of her own house. If any goon thought this was going away any time soon.....well, you're dumb. Also get ready for more BENGHAZI since this gives republicans more meat to claim Hillary was holding out on information...which really, is her own drat fault now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Nobody's even seriously talking about expulsion yet. I just wanted to throw that out there as a fun historical fact. Menendez is claiming that everything he got from the doctor was a gift from a friend, which is permissible under the Senate ethics rules. If the DoJ case gets legs, he'll likely resign, but his lawyers have a long way to go from where we are now to that point. Why would the DOJ leak this instead of actually arresting him?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Still seems like bullshit, smearing his name in the public before any formal charges are issued.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Ruh roh, it's that time againquote:At the hearing Wednesday Martinez, the former state House Speaker, said "rape is defined in many ways and some of it is just drunken college sex." His remarks were concerning a bill that would remove parental rights for rapists, according to The Santa Fe New Mexican. Hahahawaitaminute a democrat said this my political worldview is shattered
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
I haven't seen it mentioned here yet but the newest drama around the email issue is that federal employees sign a mandatory document when they leave employment declaring that they handed over all classified and other government documents. If she signed it, she lied. If there is no document, then that presents a even bigger problem as that is a mandatory document. Why give her exemption?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You mean those emails that she handed over to the state department at the end of her time as secretary we're talking about? Uh, no? You do realize she just handed over thousands of emails two years after she left her post, right?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
^^^^^ It's not accurate to say what percentage of the emails on her server were what, since all we have to go by is what she/her staff says it is. blunt for century posted:Completely agreed. She owned and used her own email server. Okay, so? I think the legitimate concern right now is whether or not she signed a mandatory document declaring she turned over all emailed related to government duties. If she signed it, she absolutely lied. If she didn't, then that's a problem within itself because it was a mandatory document so that means the State Department purposely allowed her to circumvent the rules.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 15:30 |
|
|
The State Dept. has officially responded the inquiries about whether or not Clinton signed document acknowledging turning in all related emails and documents upon leaving their position -- they can't find it:quote:“We have reviewed Secretary Clinton’s official personnel file and administrative files, and do not have any record of her signing the OF-109,” Psaki read from a prepared response. “In addition, after looking into their official personnel files, we did not locate any record of either of her immediate predecessors signing this form. It is not clear that this form is used as part of a standard part of check-out across the federal government, or even at the State Department, so we’re certainly looking into that.” As the quote says, her immediate predecessors may have also not signed the document and/or the document is lost, but this certainly doesn't help things. Not surprising that there is no document though, if there was then it would have been a clearer sign of deception.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 19:29
|
|