US Secretary of State exclusively uses private Email, pleads ignorance

Coming to the attention of the public when one of her closest advisors gets hacked by a Romanian hacker "Guccifer",  Hillary Clinton did not use public email during her whole term as secretary of state

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/investigation/hillary-clinton-private-e-mail-account-897531

While the contents of only some of the emails have been made public, the list of subjects that is published shows some that clearly might contain classified information.

I guess Hillary doesn't really get the "protect information from enemies of the state" thing.  Hillary, when using private internet services, there's really no way to know who's reading the information.

I'm really surprised this didn't come out earlier.  Is there something (special) about the providers that she and her circle of friends are using?

Funny how they forced an ambassador who did the same thing to resign
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/05/hillarys-state-dept-forced-the-resignation-of-an-ambassador-for-using-private-e-mail/


In other news, thanks to Popehat, Gen David Petraeus won't be getting jail time for leaking more-secret-than TS information to his biographer/mistress/girlfriend

Wow. Just wow. Our President.

From TheHill.com:

WH apologizes to Senate intel chief for prisoner swap secret

The White House has apologized to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) for failing to alert her in advance of a decision to release Taliban commanders from Guantanamo Bay.
Feinstein told reporters that she received a call from Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken on Monday evening apologizing for what the administration is calling an “oversight.”

 

From TheHill.com:And now, just 4 days later, Dems start bailing

Senate Democrats Go AWOL

They had Obama's back on the Bergdahl/Taliban trade. Now they're walking away.

Even ABC News Admits the Taliban is a Terrorist Organization

Rep Mike Rogers (R-Mich) actually said this:

"You can't have your privacy violated if you don't know your privacy is violated"

Then he was incredulous when law professor Stephen Vladeck disagreed with him "If a tree falls in the forest, it makes a noise whether you're there to see it or not"

"That's a new interesting standard in the law, we're gonna have this conversation and we're gonna have wine, that's gonna get a lot more interesting"

The possibilities are endless.

There's a really good write-up in Techdirt

A good parody article in Popehat too

"This is not good" - A terrifying look at Nuclear weapons

Well, I lived through it, but had no idea.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/eric-schlosser-command-control-excerpt-nuclear-weapons

If I was a grown up in 1980, and aware of what was happening...

I admit, I can't imagine.   Things are pretty screwed up now, but then?  Wow.

Net Neutrality? http://theinternetmustgo.com/

Not totally true, parody actually, but really does show what net neutrality means.

http://theinternetmustgo.com/

WHAT, you think you can do drone strikes in the US?!

From Eric "Good Prosecutorial Discretion" Holder, US Atty General,  March 2013:

“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder replied in a letter yesterday to Paul’s question about whether Obama “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

 From Wikipedia:

Posse Comitatus Act

"...Any use of the Armed Forces under either Title 10/Active Duty or Title 10/Reserves at the direction of the President will offend the Constitutional Law also known as Public Law prohibiting such action unless declared by the President of the United States and approved by Congress."

Umm Holder?  HOLDER!  BUELLER?!?!   

Even our president can't authorize drone strikes on US soil against Americans.

(I hope!) 
 

Update:  "It has come to my attention," the letter states "That you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no." - Love, Atty General Eric Holder.

Which part is more objectionable?

In case you don't know what the slogan means