Well my, my, my. Has @HillaryClinton legally disqualified herself from office?

August 24, 2015
x

“Title 18…. wut?”

Might be one good reason why she’s been so reluctant to give a straight answer to simple questions, such as “Did you wipe the server, and, no, we don’t mean with a cloth?” Not only might she be criminally liable, but she may also be barred from ever holding office again, including the presidency.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air cites the relevant law, Title 18, Section 2071, paragraph b:

Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Michael Mukasey, President Bush II’s former AG *and* a former federal judge is the one who raised this possibility. He is absolutely no legal slouch; if he thinks Hillary may have crossed this line, then her legal advisers probably worry so, too.

Ed’s right that legal prosecution to this extent isn’t likely –She is A CLINTON!!, after all, and would be the first female president ever, which is more important than anything else– but the judgement of the voting public is another matter, and you can expect conservative groups and candidates to use this to hammer her.

Good thing the Democrats have this man waiting in the wings:

Joe Biden

I mean, think about it. If Hillary falters, their other choice is a 73 year-old open Socialist and… who? Might as well go with the plagiarist who’s also a walking gaffe machine.

This should be good. smiley popcorn


Peer review is broken – Springer announces 64 papers retracted due to fake reviews

August 19, 2015

Phineas Fahrquar:

Remember this when someone tries to tell the “science is settled” regarding global warming or anything else. It is, if it’s been faked.

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

peerreview[1]Science publishing giant Springer, with over 2900 journals, has announced on its website that 64 articles published in 10 of its journals are being retracted.  Editorial staff found evidence of fake email addresses for peer reviewers.
No word yet on what type of papers, or if any climate papers are involved.

From press release:

Retraction of articles from Springer journals

London | Heidelberg, 18 August 2015

Springer confirms that 64 articles are being retracted from 10 Springer subscription journals, after editorial checks spotted fake email addresses, and subsequent internal investigations uncovered fabricated peer review reports. After a thorough investigation we have strong reason to believe that the peer review process on these 64 articles was compromised. We reported this to the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) immediately. Attempts to manipulate peer review have affected journals across a number of publishers as detailed by COPE in their December 2014 statement. Springer has…

View original 154 more words


Oh, my. Is there a backup to Hillary’s unauthorized, insecure email server?

August 17, 2015
Above the rules.

What backups?

Well, this news should have Lady Macbeth shrieking: the company she hired to store the unsecure server she kept in basement at Chappaqua (and on which she kept Top Secret information) may have made a backup before wiping and storing it.

Oops.

Platte River Networks, the Denver-based cybersecurity firm Hillary Clinton hired in 2013 to maintain her old email server, says it is “highly likely” a full backup of the device was made and that the thousands of emails Clinton deleted may still exist, ABC News is reporting.

On Wednesday, Platte River gave the FBI the server Clinton used as secretary of state. The Democratic presidential candidate had stated numerous times prior to that that she would not relinquish control of the server to a third party.

But the FBI became interested in the hardware after the revelation that the Intelligent Community inspector general had determined that two emails that traversed the server contained “top secret” information. While Clinton is not believed to have sent the emails in question, the finding undermines her claims at the onset of the email scandal in March that no classified information ever landed on her server.

Platte River has said that it is cooperating with the FBI and that it is not the target of any investigation.

The company did not respond to requests for additional comment Sunday.

The details about how Clinton’s server was handled and how the data from it was transferred have remained unclear.

That could be quite dangerous for Her Majesty’s campaign, which was already creaking and popping leaks like an old rusty tramp steamer. There’s been endless speculation about what’s in those emails, ranging from criminally mishandled state secrets (which we already know is true), to evidence of exchanging favorable decisions by Hillary as Secretary of State in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation (quite likely), to evidence of her aides’ corruption, to embarrassing proof of how incompetent Hillary was at State. Or all of the above.

No wonder she was inquiring about books on securely deleting emails.

And too bad (1) Platte River may have made them useless.

Footnote:
(1) No, really. I’m all broken up about this. Can’t you tell? smiley devil

 


EPA to spend tax dollars to study *indoor* climate change

August 16, 2015
Victim of climate change

Victim of climate change

Oh, why not? Catastrophic man-caused climate change is a chimera, anyway, so why not act like Don Quixote and see it everywhere?

The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday awarded $8 million in grants to nine universities to help better understand the impact of climate change on indoor air quality.

The agency said climate change’s impact on indoor air pollutants like mold, mildew and asthma triggers isn’t well understood.

And those effects –you can be sure they’ll find plenty using hedge-words such as “possible” and “maybe”– will be used to justify further economy-crippling regulations from EPA (and HHS?), all in the name of “public health.” Come on, you’re not against good quality air in America’s schools, are you? Or are you a denier?

“Learning how air quality, climate, and energy interact in an indoor environment will help us design buildings that better protect people’s health,” explained Curt Spalding, regional administrator of EPA’s New England office

The money is nothing to sneeze at for the winning universities.

And, like I hinted at earlier, that money will guarantee that impecunious grad students and non-tenured faculty will find the right results to keep those contracts secure.

Me, cynical?

via Watt’s Up With That


Back to Square One: Unlawful Collusion with Green Pressure Groups Should Doom U.S. EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulation

July 30, 2015

Phineas Fahrquar:

Oh, really? Why, oh why am I not shocked to find collusion between Green statists in the government and climate alarmist groups?

Originally posted on Watts Up With That?:

EPA_collusion
Washington, D.C. — Today, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), a 501 (c) (3) watchdog group, released an investigatory report, Back to Square One: Unlawful Collusion with Green Pressure Groups Should Doom U.S. EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulation  and an appendix of source documents.  The report, which is based on e-mails and other documents obtained under numerous Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests and litigation, details illegal activities by EPA staff, colluding with certain environmental lobbyists to draft EPA’s greenhouse gas (GHG) rules behind the scenes, outside of public view, and to the exclusion of other parties.  More importantly, it clearly shows that EPA must start anew if it wishes to regulate GHGs. (A two-minute companion video is available for use.)
With EPA’s GHG rules going final any day, it is critical to inform the public of the emails detailed in this report for what they show about how…

View original 461 more words


(Video) Do Big Unions Buy Politicians?

June 8, 2015

We’ve all heard of corporate lobbyists and the influence they can buy for their clients in D.C., but what about the influence of big unions over government, specifically government employee unions? When looking at all levels of government –local, state, and federal– unions like SEIU and AFSCME may be the real masters. In this Prager University video, Professor Daniel DiSalvo explains why:

Though DiSalvo doesn’t use the word, the relationship between unions and pols, particularly Democrats, is a “kickback scheme.” For more on that, click.


Did Hillary Clinton buy the New York Times endorsement in 2008 for $100,000?

June 7, 2015
Above the rules.

Above the rules.

That’s the implication in this Washington Free Beacon article. As Alana Goodman portrays it, the Clintons not only dish out favors in return for money, but they know how to play the game the other way, too:

A little-known private foundation controlled by Bill and Hillary Clinton donated $100,000 to the New York Times’ charitable fund in 2008, the same year the newspaper’s editorial page endorsed Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary, according to tax documents reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon.

The Clinton Family Foundation, a separate entity from the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, has been the family’s vehicle for personal charitable giving since 2001.

It is funded directly by the Clintons and distributes more than $1 million a year to civic and educational causes.

The New York Times Neediest Cases Fund is a charity affiliated with the newspaper that assists underprivileged New Yorkers. It is run by members of the New York Times Company’s board of directors and senior executives.

The Times’ editorial board endorsed Clinton against Democratic challengers John Edwards and Barack Obama on January 25, 2008, writing that she was “more qualified, right now, to be president.”

At the time, there were reports that the Times board had leaned toward endorsing Obama, but was overruled by then-chairman and publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., whose family controlled the paper. Sulzberger’s cousins and Times Company directors, Lynn Dolnick and Michael Golden, chaired the New York Times Neediest Cases Fund in 2008.

The Clinton Family Foundation did not list the specific date the donation was made in its public tax disclosure forms. Neither the Times nor a representative of the Clintons responded by press time to a request for comment. Clinton ended her presidential campaign on June 7, 2008.

The CFF’s $100,000 contribution to the New York Times Neediest Cases Fund is larger than its typical donations.

Of the 47 organizations the CFF donated to in 2008, only six groups received more than $50,000. Most received between $2,000 and $25,000. The CFF has not donated to the Neediest Cases Fund since 2008.

The Times endorsement was controversial at the time because there was speculation about whether it was swayed by pressure from the Clintons.

Just like all the favorable State Department decisions that came after foreign governments and business interests made big donations to the Clinton Foundation (or paid Bill for speeches), I’m sure this is all one big coincidence.

Now pull my finger.

(Psst! Read the rest!)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 15,944 other followers