Good morning everyone! Happy Wednesday to you!
Joining us for today's show, we have: Jeremy Peters, Al Hunt, Eugene Robinson, Andrea Mitchell, Bob Woodward, Jim Miklaszewski, Jeffrey Goldberg, Michael Steele, Dan Senor, Rep. Xavier Becerra, Hugo Gurdon, David Brock, Kasie Hunt, April Ryan, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Shane Smith, Sara Eisen, Christine Lagarde, Sen. John Thune and Julianne Moore
It is Wednesday, March 4th.
In the State of The Union (SOTU) address to us yesterday. Oh wait a second. That was a speech given by Netanyahu. Mika is calling that speech tough. Joe says the intensity level yesterday was much higher than the 10 SOTU speeches he has seen by the POTUS’s over those years. It was actually quite extraordinary which like Al Hunt says now, was very effective for himself. BTW, I want to remind everyone of something said the last time Netanyahu said to us when he spoke at the congress which is that “there is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons — no question whatsoever...If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.” (- Benjamin Netanyahu, in front of Congress in 2002) so you know how it goes. He is not that versed in world diplomacy. He was totally wrong then and he is most likely wrong in many cases here. He also did not give any alternatives or any solutions. he just complained about our current administration. As Igor Volsky says, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed the emerging nuclear deal between the United States, Iran, and the major world powers during a drama-filled address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday morning, but failed to offer any alternatives for ensuring that Tehran does not obtain nuclear weapons.
Instead, the Prime Minister of the Jewish state — who spoke for 40 minutes and was interrupted by applause roughly 40 times — hinted that his country could take military action “alone” against Iran in protest of any negotiated agreement.
Though the negotiations to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons have yet to produce a final accord, and Secretary of State John Kerry has repeatedly insisted that publicly available details about the talks are “not true,” Netanyahu warned that the United States is preparing to sign-off on an agreement that “all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.” “As a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand,” he declared, eliciting loud applause from the chamber. According to press accounts, the United States, Iran, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany, are in fact closing the gap around an agreement that would establish multi-year regime of strict inspections and controls on Iran’s uranium enrichment — preventing it from obtaining enough materials for weaponization. Should Iran comply, the international community would then lift economic sanctions against the country during the final five years. American officials insist that the United States is “looking for a deal that will prove over the long term” and will only sign off on an agreement that ensures that “each pathway to a bomb is closed off.”
“[W]e are adamant about not doing a deal that can’t withstand scrutiny,” Kerry said during testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week. Indeed, the Americans and Europeans are hoping that the diplomatic approach would tie Iran’s hands for a decade or longer until a new generation of democratically elected leaders take power and abandon the ways of the old regime. They also believe that the talks are preferable to the alternative: a military confrontation with Iran and Israel, the United States, or others. But Netanyahu, who compared the current Iranian regime to ISIS, argued that Israel cannot accept such a gamble and predicted that Iran “will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it is given a clear path to the bomb.” He urged the United States not to negotiate with the regime until it changes its behavior: renounces its aggression in the region, repudiates its backing of violent extremism and stops “threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.”
Specifically, Netanyahu objected to any agreement that leaves Iran with “a vast nuclear infrastructure” — potentially allowing it to develop its program out of sight of the inspectors — and sunsets controls on the nuclear program. American officials have already rejected such a bid, however. As National Security Adviser Susan Rice explained during a speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference on Monday night, “If we insist on no enrichment, our partners will abandon us,” she said. “Simply put, that is not a viable nor obtainable negotiating position.” The administration has also argued that increasing sanctions against Iran would lead Tehran to abandon the negotiations and increase the probability that it will build a bomb.
Netanyahu did not offer any specific alternatives to the Obama administration’s approach or solutions to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The Prime Minister only suggested that the administration work to strike “a much better deal” that wipes out Iran’s entire nuclear infrastructure and maintains sanctions against the country “until Iran’s aggression ends.” Under President George W. Bush’s similar policy of zero-enrichment, Iran’s centrifuges grew from 164 in 2003 to approximately 19,000 centrifuges today, and Bush officials eventually conceded during his presidency that “there was no way to reach a deal without Iran retaining at least a face-saving amount of enrichment capability.” The Obama administration kicked off this latest round of negotiations only after reaching an interim agreement with Iran that has frozen Iran’s nuclear program and rolled back its stockpiles of enriched uranium. Inspectors confirm that Iran is holding up the bargain.
Iran and its negotiating partners must agree to broad principles on limiting Iran’s nuclear capabilities no later than March 24 and reach an agreement on the technical aspects of the deal by June 30.
Speaking to reporters, President Barack Obama said that “as far as I can tell, there was nothing new” in Netanyahu’s speech. However, Obama said he agreed that “Iran has been a dangerous regime and continues to engage in activities that are contrary to the interests of the United States, to Israel, and to the region.” “On the core issue, which is how do we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon which would make it far more dangerous and would give it scope further in the region, the Prime Minister didn’t offer any viable alternatives,” he noted.
Obama insisted that he would only agree to a deal that “would cut off the different pathways for Iran’s advanced nuclear capabilities, it would roll back some elements of its program, it wound insure that it did not have what we call a breakout capacity that was shorter to a year’s time and it would subject Iran to the most vigorous inspection regimes than have ever been put in place.” “The alternative that the Prime Minister offers is no deal, in which case Iran will immediately begin once again pursuing its unclear program, accelerate its nuclear program without us having any insight into what they were doing and without inspections.” Obama also noted that Netanyahu’s preferred solution of increasing sanctions have not stopped Iran from pursuing and expanding its nuclear capabilities.
Joining us for today's show, we have: Jeremy Peters, Al Hunt, Eugene Robinson, Andrea Mitchell, Bob Woodward, Jim Miklaszewski, Jeffrey Goldberg, Michael Steele, Dan Senor, Rep. Xavier Becerra, Hugo Gurdon, David Brock, Kasie Hunt, April Ryan, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Shane Smith, Sara Eisen, Christine Lagarde, Sen. John Thune and Julianne Moore
It is Wednesday, March 4th.
In the State of The Union (SOTU) address to us yesterday. Oh wait a second. That was a speech given by Netanyahu. Mika is calling that speech tough. Joe says the intensity level yesterday was much higher than the 10 SOTU speeches he has seen by the POTUS’s over those years. It was actually quite extraordinary which like Al Hunt says now, was very effective for himself. BTW, I want to remind everyone of something said the last time Netanyahu said to us when he spoke at the congress which is that “there is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons — no question whatsoever...If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.” (- Benjamin Netanyahu, in front of Congress in 2002) so you know how it goes. He is not that versed in world diplomacy. He was totally wrong then and he is most likely wrong in many cases here. He also did not give any alternatives or any solutions. he just complained about our current administration. As Igor Volsky says, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed the emerging nuclear deal between the United States, Iran, and the major world powers during a drama-filled address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday morning, but failed to offer any alternatives for ensuring that Tehran does not obtain nuclear weapons.
Instead, the Prime Minister of the Jewish state — who spoke for 40 minutes and was interrupted by applause roughly 40 times — hinted that his country could take military action “alone” against Iran in protest of any negotiated agreement.
Though the negotiations to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons have yet to produce a final accord, and Secretary of State John Kerry has repeatedly insisted that publicly available details about the talks are “not true,” Netanyahu warned that the United States is preparing to sign-off on an agreement that “all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.” “As a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand,” he declared, eliciting loud applause from the chamber. According to press accounts, the United States, Iran, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany, are in fact closing the gap around an agreement that would establish multi-year regime of strict inspections and controls on Iran’s uranium enrichment — preventing it from obtaining enough materials for weaponization. Should Iran comply, the international community would then lift economic sanctions against the country during the final five years. American officials insist that the United States is “looking for a deal that will prove over the long term” and will only sign off on an agreement that ensures that “each pathway to a bomb is closed off.”
“[W]e are adamant about not doing a deal that can’t withstand scrutiny,” Kerry said during testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week. Indeed, the Americans and Europeans are hoping that the diplomatic approach would tie Iran’s hands for a decade or longer until a new generation of democratically elected leaders take power and abandon the ways of the old regime. They also believe that the talks are preferable to the alternative: a military confrontation with Iran and Israel, the United States, or others. But Netanyahu, who compared the current Iranian regime to ISIS, argued that Israel cannot accept such a gamble and predicted that Iran “will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it is given a clear path to the bomb.” He urged the United States not to negotiate with the regime until it changes its behavior: renounces its aggression in the region, repudiates its backing of violent extremism and stops “threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.”
Specifically, Netanyahu objected to any agreement that leaves Iran with “a vast nuclear infrastructure” — potentially allowing it to develop its program out of sight of the inspectors — and sunsets controls on the nuclear program. American officials have already rejected such a bid, however. As National Security Adviser Susan Rice explained during a speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Policy Conference on Monday night, “If we insist on no enrichment, our partners will abandon us,” she said. “Simply put, that is not a viable nor obtainable negotiating position.” The administration has also argued that increasing sanctions against Iran would lead Tehran to abandon the negotiations and increase the probability that it will build a bomb.
Netanyahu did not offer any specific alternatives to the Obama administration’s approach or solutions to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The Prime Minister only suggested that the administration work to strike “a much better deal” that wipes out Iran’s entire nuclear infrastructure and maintains sanctions against the country “until Iran’s aggression ends.” Under President George W. Bush’s similar policy of zero-enrichment, Iran’s centrifuges grew from 164 in 2003 to approximately 19,000 centrifuges today, and Bush officials eventually conceded during his presidency that “there was no way to reach a deal without Iran retaining at least a face-saving amount of enrichment capability.” The Obama administration kicked off this latest round of negotiations only after reaching an interim agreement with Iran that has frozen Iran’s nuclear program and rolled back its stockpiles of enriched uranium. Inspectors confirm that Iran is holding up the bargain.
Iran and its negotiating partners must agree to broad principles on limiting Iran’s nuclear capabilities no later than March 24 and reach an agreement on the technical aspects of the deal by June 30.
Speaking to reporters, President Barack Obama said that “as far as I can tell, there was nothing new” in Netanyahu’s speech. However, Obama said he agreed that “Iran has been a dangerous regime and continues to engage in activities that are contrary to the interests of the United States, to Israel, and to the region.” “On the core issue, which is how do we prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon which would make it far more dangerous and would give it scope further in the region, the Prime Minister didn’t offer any viable alternatives,” he noted.
Obama insisted that he would only agree to a deal that “would cut off the different pathways for Iran’s advanced nuclear capabilities, it would roll back some elements of its program, it wound insure that it did not have what we call a breakout capacity that was shorter to a year’s time and it would subject Iran to the most vigorous inspection regimes than have ever been put in place.” “The alternative that the Prime Minister offers is no deal, in which case Iran will immediately begin once again pursuing its unclear program, accelerate its nuclear program without us having any insight into what they were doing and without inspections.” Obama also noted that Netanyahu’s preferred solution of increasing sanctions have not stopped Iran from pursuing and expanding its nuclear capabilities.
Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint session of Congress on March
3, 2015.
The panel is actually discussing the speech greatly today. Everyone is making perfect points both ways and every which way. Mika is horrified and others are not but at the same time had/have issues and Mika's main crux is how he used the platform in what are suspect ways. And, OI. Joe snaps at Mika asking her to allow him to finish. They have been going at this issue for weeks so (John) Boehner really did get a rise out of everyone by not using protocols to deal with the speech. Joe feels Iran is a huge threat when Mika is stating that this was not the place for him to do it. Actually, Joe just said what i said about wishing he would have approached the POTUS and Mika has a point saying this is not his platform. He could have done this on 60 Minutes and not in front of our Congress. I get each side and every side and that is not democracy. We are not Israel and man do I hate it when people say we will agree to disagree. that is the Cop out 101. I hate that nuevo phrase people fall back on these days and Joe just did it. We get that Iran is a threat. We get that we do not want them to have nukes. We totally get it. BUT and its a huge but, we are working out a deal with them to stop it. That is my point. Maybe he is too eager like Joe says. But again, a deal is being worked out and I like it. Joe is also assuming that Iran is going to make a deal and the renege on it. That's a bad way to create a deal. You can't make a deal thinking the other arty will in due time, break it. Again, as Eugene says that the POTUS had sent something 40 times, Joe wants it said a a forty first time. He just does not believe the deal is real.
And, classic. The lead story was supposed to be about the Hilary email issue. That, however, was one of the better segments I have seen on News TV since the last one they had a few weeks ago about ISIS I think. That first 20 minutes just whizzed by with great points. I love it. This is quintessential Morning Joe.
But also, I knew the Benghazi issue would now be resurrected because of the email issue with Hilary. That is why I called it stupid yesterday. What would anyone think would happen. I cannot believe that a potential presidential candidate would even take this stupid chance and of course the Benghazi freaks are going to come back into our lives. What would anyone expect to happen? This was so stupid. So stupid.
I am going to let the panel go off more and more about it because they (Al Hunt) are basically saying what I just said. Its stupid. It likes that Benghazi issue up again. It is stupid. The judgement is horrible. The rationale is stupid. The act of using it is overly stupid. It was so stupid and honestly, it is such an easy issue to not use private emails that way. And again, why anyone on that level would think that would not rise to the office is stupid. Joe just said it all. Everything while in office should be expected that it will get read. This is just dumb. She and her people acted like idiots.
Anyway, 62% (23% say No) of the people that took the Qunnipiac poll support ground troops and like I said many times, the be-headings are what made that change of heart with the American people. I think also that most people think that as a way to conquer ISIS, we will need to not only bomb by air, that we will have to go in door to door.
I did not know that David Patreus was being indicted by the Fed's, but Mika just reported that Gen. David Petraeus pleaded guilty Tuesday to one federal charge of removing and retaining classified information as part of a plea deal, court documents show. According to the documents, Petraeus admitted removing several so-called black books -- notebooks in which he kept classified and non-classified information from his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan -- and giving them to his biographer, Paula Broadwell.
On November 9, 2012, he resigned from his CIA post, citing personal reasons.
Petraeus allegedly provided classified intelligence to his lover, Broadwell, while he was director of the CIA. The married mother of two and former military officer was writing a book about the general at the time. During his time as commander in Afghanistan, Petraeus kept personal notes including classified information in eight 5-by-8 inch black notebooks. The classified information including identity of covert officers, war strategy, notes from diplomatic and national security meetings and security code words.
David Petraeus fast facts (according/from CNN):
- In August 2011, according to the court documents, Petraeus dropped off the notebooks to a house in Washington, D.C., so Broadwell could access them. He later retrieved them and brought them to his home in Arlington, Va.
- After Petraeus resigned in 2012 he told the government he had no classified materials in his possession.
- That turned out not to be true when the FBI in April 2013 conducted a search of his house and found the black notebooks in an unlocked desk drawer in a first floor study.
- When he was questioned by the FBI, he lied and claimed that he had never provided classified information to anyone not authorized to have it, according to the court documents.
- The relationship came to light during an FBI investigation into a complaint that Broadwell was allegedly sending harassing e-mails to another woman who was close to Petraeus, a U.S. official told CNN in January.
But isn't this like a typical guy? They tell the women too much while ya know, they are together. it happens all of the time. Even in HOC (House of Cards) they hold back from saying things to each other while they are in bed naked but anyway, here we go again about the speech. Mika is saying what Joe is feeling or saying and Joe is disagreeing so again, the gloves are back off. And, Boehner did his job. He stirred up so much crap by inviting Netanyahu to speak to the Congress.
And, yes, Joe just called the speech the SOTU address. That says it all about it. Joe referred to the speech yesterday as the SOTU address
Joe misses the point again because we already know that an element out there wants Israel wiped off the planet earth but was it appropriate for them to use the Congressional Platform, rather than say media outlets, to spell this out to everyone. That is the issue here. Not the content of the speech but the speech in general but then again, everyone is now talking about what the solution is so there ya go. He succeeded by saying what he said n that speech. Plus again, it is not like Netanyahu said anything about what should be done instead of doing a deal with Iran or he never said a thing about what should be altered as part is that deal. He just spoke against it. He could have and he should have said that on the likes of 60 Minutes per se. It is not the place for him to do a State of The Union type of a speech to my congress. And, honestly, I don't even care about it (the speech or him speaking), but this debate is doing what Boehner and Netanyahu wanted it to do if that is a sentence. What they wanted to get out of acting that has succeeded. We are talking about it now for over an hour I think. Mika agrees with me. Joe is doing what they want him to do and I am sorry about taking this stance but it is true.
And, are you serious about Lindsey Graham? What an asshole. Did he denounce the Joe Wilson 'You Lie' comment at that first Obama SOTU address? That guys is an ass. he hates black people and he hates women. I can't even believe he gets voted into his seat all of these terms.
And, yeah. Oh Boy. Not only is Dan Senor on that will no doubt be all talking points by that GOP and I just heard and see Jason Chavitz is on the show. Why is that guy on? I again say that i love how everyone including Netanyahu say its a bad deal without even knowing about the terms of any deal. That is the most brilliant part of this entire debate. I kind of agree with (Dan) senor in that the admin thought they could strong arm Netanyahu to not speak to our Congress. And there we go again saying it is a bad deal without knowing anything about it. No one knows anything about the deal and when something was called a leak about it last week, it was said by the POTUS that was not true. Wow. Mika called what Dan (Senor) said as a load of crap. I am glad but only because its Dan Senor which BTW, before he took on the Willard (Mitt Romney) gig, he acted so down the middle but man did he do a switcharoo to the conservative and not only conservative side, but to the unreasonable side where he just says whatever that talking point is for that day. he has now done that for three and a half years.
What does an Israeli election coming up have to do with giving one of the candidates the right to speak on that campaign trail 6,000 miles away from that capital city? This is an Israeli election. He could have done his speech there which is appropriate. This is NOT a United States election in any way. And wow again. Dan (Senor) says that Boehner should have used protocols. I am so proud of him (Dan Senor). And, I also agree that the POTUS would have urged Boehner to not do it but Boehner should have said that he is not gonna like it, but this is the deal and that is it. That would have changed the entire complexion of it and honestly, it would have made the POTUS look worse than Boehner does now.
I wanna hear this 'Media Matters' story about the Hilary email issue. Actually, let me try to find it. David Brock (head of Media Matters) claims the story is sloppy, was more of opinion by the writer, that it did/does not stand up to scrutiny afterward, that it should be retracted, that they have no sources to back it, that its based on false premises and maybe something else but I found this just now:
The New York Times' Deceptive Suggestion That Hillary Clinton May Have Violated Federal Records Law
It Was Only After Clinton Left The State Department That The Law Concerning Private Emails Was Changed
The New York Times accused Hillary Clinton of potentially violating federal law pertaining to the preservation of e-mail records while acting as Secretary of State, but requirements to maintain such records did not exist during her tenure.
The New York Times Accused Clinton Of Possible Wrong-Doing With Usage Of Non-Government Emails
NYT: Clinton's Use Of Private Email During Time At The State Department May Have Violated Federal Law. In a March 2 report, The New York Times accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of possibly having "violated federal requirements that officials' correspondence be retained as part of the agency's record" with the use of personal email for official government business during her time at the department.The Timesreported, "Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them. There are exceptions to the law for certain classified and sensitive materials." [The New York Times,3/2/15]
But The Law Overseeing Retention Of Private Emails Was Not Changed Until After Clinton Left The State Department
President Obama Signed Update To Federal Records Act In 2014. The Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 became law on November 26, 2014. [Congress.gov, accessed 3/3/15]
- National Archives Official: 2014 Federal Records Law Clarified How Private Email Should Be Handled. Among the "major points" in the 2014 law highlighted by the National Archives was: "Clarifying the responsibilities of Federal government officials when using non-government email systems." [Records Express, National Archives, 12/2/14]
- 2014 Federal Records Law Marked "The First Significant Changes To The Federal Records Act Of 1950." According to the National Archives, the 2014 law marked "the first significant changes to the Federal Records Act of 1950." [Records Express, National Archives, 12/2/14]
Law Signed "Two Years After Clinton Stepped Down." Criticizing the Times article's insinuation that Clinton violated the law, Daily Banter contributor Bob Cesca pointed out: "The article doesn't say which federal regulation, though. Why? Perhaps because the federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after Clinton stepped down." [The Daily Banter, 3/3/15]
Rep. Cummings: Even The 2014 Bill "Would Continue To Allow Employees To Use Their Personal Email Account For Official Business." Contrary to claims that Hillary Clinton violated the law by using personal email account while serving as Secretary of State, even a 2014 law that strengthened oversight of the use of personal email by government officials -- passed after Hillary Clinton had left the State Department -- still permitted government officials to use personal email. During a House speech discussing the bill, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) said:
CUMMINGS: The bill also includes language based on an amendment that Darryl Issa proposed during the committee markup of the bill to address the use of personal email by the federal employees; and that amendment makes the bill even better. This bill will continue to allow employees to use their personal email account for official business when necessary, but it would require employees to copy their official email account or forward their email to their official account. [Cummings floor statement on Presidential Records Act, 11/12/14, via YouTube]
Politico: New Law "Made Clear" Personal Emails On Official Business Must Be Preserved. Reporting on President Obama signing the bill in November 2014, Politico reported: "The law also includes a provision sought by Republicans making clear that emails government employees send on private accounts about government business must be incorporated into official records systems." [Politico, 11/26/14]
Media Follow NYT In Scandalizing Clinton's Use Of Non-Government Email
Good Morning America: NYT Report "Raises Questions About" Clinton's "Security And Transparency." During a March 3 report on ABC's Good Morning America, host George Stephanopoulos asserted that the Times report on Clinton's use of personal email "raises questions about" Clinton's "security and transparency." Network White House correspondent Jonathan Karl agreed, saying, "It sure does and it will also likely become a big issue in the upcoming presidential campaign." [ABC, Good Morning America, 3/3/15]
Today: Clinton's Use Of Personal Email "A Potential Political Problem" For Her. In a March 3 report for NBC's Today, network correspondent Kristen Welker reported that Clinton's use of personal email during her time as Secretary of State was a "potential political problem as she mulls a presidential run in 2016" that "plays right into the hands of her critics." [NBC, Today, 3/3/15]
Wash. Post: Clinton's Private Email Account "Bolster[s] Long-Standing Criticism" She Is Not "Transparent." In a March 3 report on Clinton's use of a personal email account, The Washington Post asserted that the news "appears to bolster long-standing criticism that Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, have not been transparent." [The Washington Post, 3/3/15]
Time: Clinton "Only Used A Personal Email Account" Despite Law Requiring Emails Be "Kept On Departmental And Not Private Servers." In a March 2 post, Time asserted that Hillary Clinton had "only used a personal email account" despite a stipulation from federal law which required emails be "kept on departmental and not private servers." The post went on to claim that "Clinton's aides allegedly made no effort to upload her personal emails to the department's servers during her four-year tenure, as stipulated under the Federal Records Act." [Time, 3/2/15]
The Atlantic: Clinton Has "Contempt For Transparency." The Atlantic's Connor Friedersdorf asserted in a March 3 article that Clinton has a "contempt for transparency" as evidenced by "her willful, flagrant disregard for public records rules." Friedersdorf went on to allege that by using her personal account, Clinton could have hidden "whatever she wants hidden":
There's no telling what other official or semi-official business Clinton conducted through the private email account that she seems to have begun using just before taking her cabinet job. The emails she has turned over were all chosen by Clinton and her aides, giving her an opportunity to hide whatever she wants hidden. But the episode already confirms what attentive observers have long known: if the Clintons return to the White House, we can expect more suspicious secrets, stonewalling, and opaqueness, much as we've seen in the past. Voters have been given ample warning. [The Atlantic, 3/3/15]
The NYT Scandal Mongering Is Based On Old News
Use Of Non-Government Email Is Not New. Business Insider reported that it has been known since 2013 that Clinton used a non-government email, undercutting the campaign to scandalize the fact:
Clinton emailed from a personalized domain, clintonemail.com. Records show it was registered on the day of her confirmation hearing in January 2009. Along with State Department business, the officials said Clinton also used the email address to communicate with friends and family.
Her address was revealed in early 2013, shortly after she left the State Department. [Business Insider, 3/3/15].
Media's Double Standard On Transparency For Hillary Clinton
Media outlets are holding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to a higher standard by scandalizing her use of personal email while at the State Department, claiming the practice raises questions about her "transparency." In reality, other public officials -- including former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (R), who is attacking Clinton over the emails, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell -- have exclusively used personal email.
Media Use NYT Report On Clinton's Use Of Personal Emails To Hold Clinton To A Higher Standard
NY Times: Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email As Secretary Of State. In a March 2 report, The New York Times highlighted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of personal email for official government business during her time at the department. [The New York Times, 3/2/15]
NY Times: Jeb Bush Took "A Very Different Approach" Than Clinton Because He Released Emails From His Time As Governor Of Florida. The New York Times went on to suggest that Clinton's use of personal email makes some question her transparency, comparing Clinton to Jeb Bush who "released a trove of emails" from his time as governor of Florida, without acknowledging that Bush also used personal email as governor:
The revelation about the private email account echoes longstanding criticisms directed at both the former secretary and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, for a lack of transparency and inclination toward secrecy.And others who, like Mrs. Clinton, are eyeing a candidacy for the White House are stressing a very different approach. Jeb Bush, who is seeking the Republican nomination for president, released a trove of emails in December from his eight years as governor of Florida. [The New York Times, 3/2/15]
Politico: Use Of Personal Email "Seems Certain To Generate Controversy" Ahead Of 2016, As Potential Rivals Like Jeb Bush Urge Clinton To Make Emails Public. Politico's report on Clinton's use of personal email amplified comments by Jeb Bush's spokeswoman calling for Clinton to make her emails public:
A potential rival of Clinton in the presidential campaign, former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.), called on the former secretary of state to make the collection of emails public."Hillary Clinton should release her emails. Hopefully she hasn't already destroyed them," Bush spokeswoman Kristy Campbell said. "Governor Bush believes transparency is a critical part of public service and of governing." [Politico, 3/2/15]
Wash. Post: Personal Email "Appears To Bolster Long-Standing Criticism" That Clinton Has Not Been Transparent. The Washington Post claimed that Clinton's use of personal email as Secretary of State bolstered claims that Clinton is not transparent, amplifying comments from Bush's spokeswoman calling on Clinton to release the emails in full:
It was not clear why Clinton, a potential 2016 presidential candidate, created the private account. But the practice appears to bolster long-standing criticism that Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, have not been transparent."Hillary Clinton should release her e-mails," said Kristy Campbell, a spokeswoman for former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who is also weighing a presidential bid. "Hopefully she hasn't already destroyed them."Campbell noted that Bush created a Web site, at www.jebemails.com, providing public access to his electronic communications while in office. "Governor Bush believes transparency is a critical part of public service and of governing," she said in a statement. [The Washington Post, 3/3/15]
Bloomberg: Revelation Of Personal Email Use "Is An Opportunity For Bush ... To Contrast Himself With Clinton." Bloomberg Politics reported that Jeb Bush's 2016 campaign team "pounced on the revelation that Hillary Clinton used only personal e-mail as secretary of state" and called the Times report "an opportunity" for Bush "to contrast himself with Clinton" ahead of a 2016 presidential race:
The revelation is an opportunity for Bush, a likely Republican presidential candidate, to contrast himself with Clinton, the presumed Democratic frontrunner, on the issue of transparency. Bush, a famously active e-mailer as governor of Florida, in December said he intended to release about 250,000 messages from his time as governor, to accompany an e-book. [Bloomberg Politics, 3/3/15]
CBS News: "Jeb Bush, Who Recently Released His Own Emails From His Time As Florida Governor," Called On Clinton To Be Transparent. CBS News hyped Bush's call for Clinton to be transparent in its report on Clinton's use of personal emails, never acknowledging that Bush also used personal email as governor:
Jeb Bush, who recently released his own emails from his time as Florida governor and is mulling a run for the presidency, was quick to Tweet a response to Clinton's emails, calling for more of her emails: "Transparency matters. Unclassified @HillaryClinton emails should be released." [CBS News, 3/3/15]
But Jeb Bush -- Who Is Attacking Clinton Over Use Of Private Email -- Also Used Private Email While In Public Office
Tampa Bay Times: Bush Exclusively Used Private Email Account As Governor Of Florida. In January, the Tampa Bay Times noted that as governor of Florida, Jeb Bush "conducted all his communication on his private Jeb@jeb.org account," and has not released all of his emails to the public:
As Mary Ellen Klas of the Miami Herald/Tampa Bay Times Tallahassee Bureau reported in January:The former governor conducted all his communication on his private Jeb@jeb.org account and turned over the hand-selected batch to the state archives when he left office. Absent from the stash are emails the governor deemed not relevant to the public record: those relating to politics, fundraising and personal matters while he was governor.Bush's use of a private account was known at the time and the news media/public was able to request records.Current Gov. Rick Scott also used a private account to discuss private business, despite first saying he used one only for family issues. In November, Scott turned over 197 pages from his private Google mail account after he and his attorneys previously told the court the records did not exist. [Tampa Bay Times, 3/2/15]
Contrary To Scandal Mongering, Precedent Exists For Secretaries of State To Use of Non-Official Email Accounts
John Kerry Was Reportedly First Secretary Of State To Have A Government-Issued Email Account. The New York Times' Michael Schmidt, who wrote the Times' report on Clinton's use of personal email, appeared on the March 3 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe and stated that according to the State Department, "John Kerry is the first Secretary of State in the history of the United States to have a government email account." [MSNBC, Morning Joe, 3/3/15]
Colin Powell: I Used Personal Email To Contact Staff, Ambassadors, Foreign Ministers. In his book It Worked For Me: In Life And Leadership, former Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote that during his tenure at the State Department during the Bush administration, he used a personal email account and a private laptop computer to contact staff, ambassadors, and foreign ministers. From his book:
To complement the official State Department computer in my office, I installed a laptop computer on a private line. My personal email account on the laptop allowed me direct access to anyone online. I started shooting emails to my principal assistants, to individual ambassadors, and increasingly to my foreign-minister colleagues who like me were trying to bring their ministries into the 186,000-miles-per-second world. [Colin Powell, It Worked For Me: In Life And Leadership, page 151]
This is a great interview. Joe is reading the by law from the national Archives and records Administration and Regulation in 2009 that agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by that agency must ensure that federal Records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system, which is pretty cut and dry. But then again, she did turn over like 55,000 emails or pages so she me covered there, but anyway, Media Matters says anything that NY Times writer says it is not a good story and that premise that she broke law is unfounded.
Mika is getting testy again. She just asked if we were on the same planet.
Josh Ernest responded to the email issue yesterday basically reconfirming the by law. I sort of agree which I said yesterday and again this AM in that all this is doing is resurrecting the Benghazi controversy. That is exactly what it did yesterday. Trey Goudy already did a press conference about it. That was an awkward interview and I get his stance but they are obviously Hilary supporters or at least that is how i am taking the Media matters people.
And, sh%t. It is almost time for Jason Chavitz. The second most annoying person in the Congress (behind Blake Faranthal). I hate this guy. What is fundamentally wrong is adding clauses and loopholes to bills. He is supportive of Boehner and against Obama. OK. That makes no sense. Whatever. I cant deal with this guy. And yes. America has figured out where the road blocks are in Congress. Its with the GOP and more notably, it is because of people like Jason Chavitz. He is another asshole that cares about anything but the people. He mentions the keystone XL even though no one wants that built except for 18 people that own happen to own the crude oil companies.
Next, the Justice Department review has found that Missouri's troubled Ferguson Police Department engaged in a broad pattern of racially biased enforcement that permeated the city's justice system, including the use of unreasonable force against African American suspects, according to a law enforcement official familiar with the findings.
In 88% of cases in which Ferguson police documented the use of force, for example, that force was used against African Americans, according to the official who is not authorized to comment publicly. In addition, in all 14 canine bite incidents in which the suspect's race is known, the person bitten was African American.
African Americans account for 67% of the population in Ferguson, but they accounted for 85% of the drivers stopped by police, 90% of the people issued tickets and 93% of the people arrested, a three-year examination of suspect stops found. When those cases reached the Municipal Court, authorities collected more fines for suspects' failure to appear than any other charge, mostly from the city's poorest and most vulnerable residents.
African Americans were more than twice as likely than white drivers to be searched during vehicle stops, but 26% less likely to have contraband, the review found.
BTW, my feeling about Iran and that is issue is that I agree with anyone that states that they must step up. They have lied and they cheated and they have misled the world. However, they seem to love the west and they seem to LOVE America. They should fight vs. ISIS and they need to step up to get the trust they want to get. That is my feeling because the jury is still out and that is why people are skeptical about any deal. No one trusts the government of Iran but again, they have turned a corner in that they love the west. They love American culture by far more than any Arab country. They need to prove it to us that they will be responsible with anything they do with those parts that make up nuclear power, etc. It makes me nervous but at the same time, I do see some light there.I also get the Israel stance but then again, Israel has been this way with a lot of countries they are allies with today.
Julianne Moore whom I had the pleasure of meeting in the late nineties at the Sundance Festival (or maybe it was early 00's; I forget) is on soon. I wonder why she is on today.
Christine Lagarde (IMF) is on first to discuss equality of payments to people around the world. I don't get this fight. There should be equal pay people should be paid according to their experiences and work history and actually, any one's successes. I get there are issues with regard to women getting paid equally but it is not really my fight. Plus, I would never pay anyone less than the next person for any reason but what the job entails. If anyone has the same job duties or parallels in that way, it is obvious that they should be paid the as the other person. I don't even get how anyone could feel comfortable paying females less money because they \are a woman. that makes no sense and it is awful leadership. besides again, in my industry, women have ruled and run divisions and companies for decades or ever since I started working in it. Most of my bosses were female.
Is it me or is that Kristin Stewart actor the worst actress ever or is it because she had to act next to Julianne Moore? "Thats horrible" was the line and it made me cringe hearing it but its like that time when Axel Rose had to exchange lines with Mick Jagger in that "Lets Sing to the wide open spaces" song at Boardwalk hall in AC, NJ. It was like a boy being amongst a man in that situation and you hear Julianne acting for real only to have the Kristin woman say that line that was like me acting. I have never seen anything that Kristin woman was in so i may be off basing that on a one mere line but that scene annoyed me.
Is it me or is that Kristin Stewart actor the worst actress ever or is it because she had to act next to Julianne Moore? "Thats horrible" was the line and it made me cringe hearing it but its like that time when Axel Rose had to exchange lines with Mick Jagger in that "Lets Sing to the wide open spaces" song at Boardwalk hall in AC, NJ. It was like a boy being amongst a man in that situation and you hear Julianne acting for real only to have the Kristin woman say that line that was like me acting. I have never seen anything that Kristin woman was in so i may be off basing that on a one mere line but that scene annoyed me.
Regardless of it all, Please stay in touch!
