How Isolated was Ms. Clinton?

The former Secretary of State has stated, repeatedly, that she neither sent nor received classified emails on her secret burnerserver.  She also maintains she exclusively used her bathroom server, and no other one.  Which raises a pretty obvious question.  Why not?  How in the world can the USA SoS go 3-4 years without ever being sent, or needing to send, a classified email?   Just look at few of the major foreign policy issues that happened during her tenure;

• Day 2 on the job the POTUS orders all the "black sites" the CIA has around the world closed.
• Feb - POTUS signs a memo promising $20,000,000 in aid to Gaza. GTMO trials are halted. POTUS gives SOTU address to Congress. POTUS gives speech to Marines announcing his plans to pull all troops out of Iraq.
• Mar - PM of the UK visits the USA. Russia goes public with a letter the POTUS wrote and misstates what it says. POTUS sends video to the leadership of Iran. POTUS announces new strategy for Iraq & Afghn.
• April - G20 summit. N.Korea violates testing ban and fires a nuke capable missile. POTUS speaks to Turkish parliament. POTUS visits Iraq. POTUS orders release of "torture" memos and announces no prosecutions will happen. POTUS goes to Summit of Americas.
• May - POTUS fires commanding general in Afghn. Blocks release of "torture" pics.

That's just the first 3+ months on the job and, according to Ms. Clinton, she never sent nor received any classified material during her entire tenure?  Nobody in the CIA, NSA, State Department, White House, Congress, the Pentagon or any of our allies sent her a single classified email on any of the topics?

So, how isolated was Ms. Clinton?

Either she's lying about classified information or nobody trusted her with classified information. 

Citizens United...the inconvenient truth

The Citizens United case is making another swing through hyperventilating liberal media outlets so it's time for another airing of the facts... 


CU ruled...


1. Instead of advocating for their candidate in a circuitous manner ("issue ads"), unions and other corporations could come out and use the names of those they support, or don't support ("electioneering communication"), within 30 or 60 days of an election. Prior to CU unions and corps could run issue ads right up until the election, but they couldn't run electioneering ads.  (See Michael Moore and Swift Boat for examples)


2. It did not change the amounts unions and other corporations could spend in an election.


3. It did not change the prohibitions and limitations on direct contributions by unions and other corporations.


4. It did not change the disclosure requirements for unions and other corporations.


5. It did not change campaign finance restrictions on foreign donations or activities.


6. The ACLU, not widely known for it's warm relationships with corporate America, filed an amicus brief in support of the decision.


7. It did not create "super PACs"

It is true that the court ruled on issues not present in the original filing, but we can thank former Justice Souter for that development. In his original dissent he introduced issues not in debate. Chief Justice Roberts ordered the case reheard to address these issues. That's how the case grew in scope.


Somehow I doubt Rachael Maddow will thank me for this info.





July 17, 2012
post script...apparently the NY Times finally got around to reading the decision.  After years of OpEds extolling the end of American democracy it appears that when it does happen, it won't be because of CU.  In   fact, after further review, the NYT's concludes CU actually clarified election laws rather than opening a flood gate of tarnishing corporate contributions.  Maybe there is hope for American democracy after all.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/magazine/how-much-has-citizens-united-changed-the-political-game.html?_r=1&hp