That Story About Clinton Not Signing A State Department Exit Form Is Utter Horsesh*t
Excuse me. [yawns]
Republicans and Clinton-bashers have suggested that if she signed the form, which verifies that outgoing employees turned over all official documents to State, she actually committed a felony because she didn’t turn over her official emails until last year. Cue Dr. Evil fanfare.
The State Department’s Jen Psaki, however, told reporters on Tuesday that State has no record of Clinton’s OF-109 — in other words, she probably didn’t sign the form, which has naturally led Clinton critics to surmise that she deliberately didn’t sign it because she was absconding off with all of those emails (clearly in a plot to cover-up something, something Benghazi).
Of course, if we scroll down the article we find this… CONTINUE READING
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: Bob Cesca
Bob Cesca is the managing editor at The Daily Banter (www.thedailybanter.com) and a Huffington Post contributor since 2005. He's worked in journalism since 1988 as a print writer/editor, a radio news anchor, a digital media columnist/editor, a book author and blogger. He's the co-host of the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast and a Thursday regular on the syndicated Stephanie Miller Show. He's appeared on numerous other radio shows including the John Phillips Show and Geraldo Rivera Show in Los Angeles. Bob has been a commentator/analyst on the BBC (TV and radio), MSNBC, Current TV, CNN and Sky News. Following him on Twitter: @bobcesca_go
30 responses to That Story About Clinton Not Signing A State Department Exit Form Is Utter Horsesh*t
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
trees March 17th, 2015 at 20:22
For over a week the State Department has been mute on this, further, it doesn’t surprise me that Psaki has no record, cause the fact is that over some two years after Hillary left as The Secretary of State, the State Department had no records. Understand this, Hillary took ALL OF THE RECORDS from the State Department….
??????
Hirightnow March 17th, 2015 at 20:25
And….?
whatthe46 March 17th, 2015 at 20:45
get some preparation b.s. for that butt hurt why don’t you.
FatRat March 17th, 2015 at 20:32
Scroll down there is more Space Dust. LOL
Of course, if we scroll down the article we find this:
Psaki said there also is no record of the form being completed by Clinton’s two most recent predecessors, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell.
And…
“It’s not clear that this form is used as a part of a standard part of checkout across the federal government or even at the State Department,” she said. “We’re looking into how standard this is across the federal government and certainly at the State Department… I don’t want to characterize how common practice it is.”
So, in other words, the last three secretaries didn’t sign the form, and State is unsure it ever uses the form in the first place.
https://anibundel.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/hungry-are-the-damned-pic.jpg
Simpsons Tree House of Horror Hungry are the Damned.
This will give the humans the perfect flavor.
Stop! Don’t you see what’s happening? They’re fattening us up so they can eat us! -Lisa.
-Oh, come on, Lisa.
If you don’t believe me, look at this book I found.
http://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/t_article_image/xnb2euejtrtgemj3lwfv.jpg
-She’s right.
-You have stopped eating.
Listen, you big stupid space creature! Nobody, but nobody, eats the Simpsons.
-I beg your pardon? -We found your book.
You mean this? It’s a harmless cookbook.
It’s just a little dusty.
Wait a minute.
https://theyearofhalloween.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/hungry-are-the-damned-e28093-treehouse-of-horror-i-1990.gif
Wait, there’s still more space dust on here.
http://www.the-filmreel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/treehouse_01_03.jpg
trees March 17th, 2015 at 20:40
From The National Review……..
Did Clinton falsely certify the return of all records upon her departure from State?
One of the defenses that Hillary Clinton offered at yesterday’s press conference was that she had complied with federal records laws because those laws leave it up to her, as the employee who created or received an e-mail, to decide whether that e-mail must be preserved under the Federal Records Act.
But while Clinton is correct that every employee has to make some initial determination of whether a particular document is an official “record,” the ultimate determination is most definitely not up to the employee, but rather to the agency and its records-management officials.
Bear with me through some bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo for a moment, because the payoff is pretty significant. That Mrs. Clinton is not the ultimate arbiter of whether her records must be preserved is made very clear in the Department of State’s own records-management manual. Under a provision titled “Removal Procedures,” the manual sets forth the process that each Department of State employee must go through upon separation (i.e., resignation or retirement) from the department. In addition to relinquishing classified materials, all employees are required to clear the removal of any unclassified materials through records-management officials. First, the “departing official or a staff member must prepare an inventory of personal papers and non-record materials proposed for removal.” The departing official must then “request a review of the materials proposed for removal.”
Lest Mrs. Clinton claim she was not subject to this rule, the manual provides that this review process is specifically required for “Presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate.”
The purpose of this independent review by records officials (as opposed to simply accepting the say-so of the departing official) is “to certify that the documentary materials proposed for removal may be removed without diminishing the official records of the Department; violating national security, privacy or other restrictions on disclosure; or exceeding normal administrative economies.” The process “generally requires a hands-on examination of the materials to verify the accuracy of the inventory.” (5 FAH-4 H-217.2(b)). Finally, there is a formal certification by the State Department records official authorizing the employee to remove the documents from State’s custody: “Once the reviewing official is satisfied that documentary materials proposed for removal comply with Federal law and regulations the reviewing official completes Form DS-1904, Authorization for the Removal of Personal Papers and Non-Record Materials, and forwards the form and the inventory to the Department of State records officer.”
These “non-record materials” may be removed only “when authorized by the Department and only to the extent that their removal does not: (1) Diminish the official records of the Department; (2) Violate confidentiality required by national security, privacy or other restrictions on disclosure (e.g., commercial or financial information, personnel files or investigative records); (3) Exceed normal administrative economies.” Despite her repeated protestations at yesterday’s press conference that she followed all applicable rules, it is pellucid that she did not.
Mrs. Clinton plainly did not just remove personal e-mails without clearing that removal with records officials; she also did not even return official records.
Her defense now is that returning the documents two years later is good enough.
But the same records manual emphatically rebuts that post-hoc justification. The department’s records manual requires that departing officials “must ensure that all record material that they possess is incorporated in the Department’s official files and that all file searches for which they have been tasked have been completed, such as those required to respond to FOIA, Congressional, or litigation-related document requests.” And lest the employee not get the message, the manual adds that “fines, imprisonment, or both may be imposed for the willful and unlawful removal or destruction of records as stated in the U.S. Criminal Code (e.g., 18 U.S.C., section 2071).”
I have already discussed here the question of whether Mrs. Clinton may have violated that criminal prohibition on willful concealment of government records, and the evidence to date — especially her disclosure yesterday that she deleted any document that she determined to be personal in nature (without permission of the Department under the records-removal guidelines) — suggests a strong possibility that she did. But might she have lied to department records officials when she separated from service? The department’s records manual (5 FAH-4 H-217.1(a)) requires that records officials “remind[] all officials, about to leave the Department or a post, of the requirements for the removal of personal papers and non-record materials.” Critically, the department enforces “compliance with these procedures for the removal of documentary materials prior to execution of the Separation Statement (Form OF-109).”
And what is Form OF-109? It is a formal separation statement, in which the departing official certifies the return of any classified materials, and, more relevant for present purposes, that the departing official has “surrendered to responsible officials all unclassified documents, and papers relating to the official business of the Government acquired by me while in the employ of the Department.” The form makes very clear that a false statement in the certification is punishable as a crime, including under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully falsify or conceal facts in statements made to federal agencies concerning a matter within its jurisdiction.
According to the department’s procedures, then, every departing official is required to certify the return of all government documents under penalty of law. Did Hillary Clinton sign such a certification upon her separation from government? Did she knowingly swear that she had returned all records, when in fact she had retained at least 55,000 pages of official e-mails (and perhaps more)? And if she did not sign such a certification, why not? Every other departing employee and official of the State Department is required to do so. Did she ignore her obligations to return the records and thus avoid a false certification? It seems that the one document in all of this that we need to see, if it exists, is Hillary Clinton’s Form OF-109
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415239/did-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-part-ii-shannen-w-coffin
John Tarter March 17th, 2015 at 23:17
You are talking about HILLARY CLINTON here! She is special and entitled to special exemptions from the normal laws and procedures everyone else must follow. Now do you understand?????
William March 17th, 2015 at 23:39
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha.
OldLefty March 19th, 2015 at 07:05
More accurately,
‘You are talking about HILLARY CLINTON here! The Clintons are special and entitled to special attacks from the DC beltway media. You can not expect them to go against the herd mentality that has been so very entertaining for them for decades. Now do you understand?????
trees March 17th, 2015 at 21:12
Just so we’re clear here, Mrs Clinton in her press conference stated that she obtained her own server, set up and maintained her own email account, and then read, with her attorneys, some 60,000+ emails, carefully scouring each and every one of them before deciding which ones were official government records, and which ones were private, or personal…..for convenience….
Hmmm…….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9G6KwaR6VA
Robert M. Snyder March 17th, 2015 at 21:25
Someday John Kerry is going to write a book about his time as Secretary as State. And in that book he is going to disclose how furious he was during his first days on the job when he discovered that his predecessor left him with no documentation of her conversations with foreign leaders, officials, and diplomats.
We are living in the information age. Documentation is no longer just something for the archives. Information is a critical resource that allows an organization to continue functioning smoothly and effectively as people move in and out of various positions.
It’s John Kerry’s first week on the job. The president of Latvia calls to congratulate him. During their conversation, he asks about the status of something that Hillary promised to look into. John says “I’ll get back to you.”.
How will John find out what Hillary discussed with the president, what she promised to do for him, and what, if anything, he promised to do in return? Was the staff informed of the previous conversations? Are their memories clear and accurate? If you were in John’s place, wouldn’t you want to have a quick look at any previous email exchanges between Hillary and the Latvian president, or at least have the option to do so?
tracey marie March 18th, 2015 at 22:50
straw man argument to feel good about yourself
Robert M. Snyder March 18th, 2015 at 23:09
I can’t remember a single time when you challenged any of my viewpoints by using facts and/or logical arguments. Why is that?
trees March 17th, 2015 at 21:25
I couldn’t agree with you more……….
Kind of like those stories kids tell, you know, like when the kids have done something really wrong, and they sit there trying to feed you full of crap……..
William March 17th, 2015 at 23:36
Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha
trees March 18th, 2015 at 00:24
You know that law, you know, the one you were asking about, the one you wanted to see, the one that demonstrated Hillary’s guilt?
The law I accused her of breaking, the one you didn’t think existed, because you erroneously claimed that she hadn’t broken any laws???
It’s up at the top of the page, have a look, and then tell me about how you were once entrusted to uphold the law, you know, back when you were a cop???
I guess you only like the law in certain circumstances, but not others…..
William March 18th, 2015 at 00:43
I think you’ve pretty much exhausted any credibility.
So you want to go from televisions at a turnpike rest stop to my career?
Oh please do continue, oh nameless, faceless, anonymous, oracle of wisdom and legal expertise.
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/laughing-gif
trees March 18th, 2015 at 01:57
Oh? How’s that? Cause I’ve brought fact and combined it with law? Is that your assertion??
Cause I cited the law, 18 U.S. Code § 1512….
I know I posted a really long article, and I know you struggle with comprehension, so I’ll make it concise….
Let’s consider some of the basic, undisputed facts
Whether or not Mrs. Clinton violated a State Department rule, her admitted destruction of more than 30,000 emails sure looks like obstruction of justice —a serious violation of the criminal law.
And applied it as to Hillary circumstances…..
The law says that no one has to use email, but it is a crime (18 U.S.C. section 1519) to destroy even one message to prevent it from being subpoenaed. Prosecutors charging someone with obstruction don’t even have to establish that any investigation was pending or under way when the deletion took place. As T. Markus Funk explained in ajournal article for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the prosecutor “need only prove that the defendant shredded the documents, at least in part, to make life more difficult for future investigators, if and when they eventually appear.”
Legal commentators call this “anticipatory obstruction of justice,” and the law punishes it with up to 20 years imprisonment. The burden of proof is light. The Justice Department manual advises that section 1519 makes prosecution much easier because it covers “any matters” or “’in relation to or contemplation of’ any matters.” It adds, “No corrupt persuasion is required.”
And cited an authority, http://www.chapman.edu/our-faculty/ronald-rotunda
Fact; Hillary kept all of her email correspondences, the entire 4 years while at State, as well as an additional 2 years after leaving the office, on her own personal server, in anticipation of a pending legal investigation of which she was a person of interest, which is a direct violation of the law, as cited, as the purpose of concealing this information was to ensure that she could destroy any incriminating evidence, in this case emails, at her convenience……
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9G6KwaR6VA
Dwendt44 March 18th, 2015 at 02:13
You wouldn’t know a fact if you tripped over it. Hillary has done what most previous S of States have done. Her server, if it was in fact her’s, was secure and likely more secure than the State Dept. one was/is. Wild claims are SOP for the rabid right, attack the candidate with anything and everything, no matter how trivial or ridiculous.
Why not wait for the facts before making wild eyed and baseless claims? That ‘s no fun, smear and lie all you want, but Hillary is still going to be the next president.
trees March 18th, 2015 at 03:29
You wouldn’t know a fact if you tripped over it. Hillary has done what most previous S of States have done.
Fact; Hillary Clinton is the first Secretary of State to conduct all of her email on a private account controlled by her very own personal computer server. She is also the only Secretary of State to keep all of the documents after leaving her appointment as Secretary. Further, she is the only Secretary of State to delete over half of all her emails, in a preemptive move, in anticipation of being involved in an investigation
Wild claims are SOP for the rabid right, attack the candidate with anything and everything, no matter how trivial or ridiculous.
No, a wild claim is proclaiming her innocence when the facts clearly demonstrate otherwise….
Why not wait for the facts before making wild eyed and baseless claims?
Hillary presented us, you and I, with these facts when she addressed the issue the other day. Hillary has admitted these facts….
That ‘s no fun, smear and lie all you want
The one who is doing this is, you.
Hillary is still going to be the next president.
You seem to have trouble separating facts from your personal opinions
Dwendt44 March 18th, 2015 at 17:50
Hide a watch her get elected.
There’s no alternative on the GOP side, and the few Democrats that have expressed interest aren’t really competitive against her.
William March 18th, 2015 at 02:19
You know?
Instead of repeatedly copying and pasting the same old article in bold font, why not try Caps?
I bet you’ll REALLY be credible then …huh?
trees March 18th, 2015 at 03:17
You know?Instead of repeatedly copying and pasting the same old article over and over
Check the date, that article is a recent, (day before yesterday), legal opinion from a knowledgeable source…..
“Yeah, sure, some source…”, is what you’ll likely say, right?
Here, let’s see if he’s credentialed, mmkay?
And it goes on, and on, and on……
But I think you get the picture.
trees March 18th, 2015 at 00:18
18 U.S. Code § 1512
By
RONALD D. ROTUNDA March 16, 2015 7:09 p.m. ET
The fact that Hillary Clinton exclusively used a private server in her home, rather than a secure government server, to send emails during her four years as secretary of state has raised many questions. She now says that it was a mistake but also emphasizes that she broke no law. News reports typically describe her offense as not following “policy.”
Whether or not Mrs. Clinton violated a State Department rule, her admitted destruction of more than 30,000 emails sure looks like obstruction of justice —a serious violation of the criminal law. Let’s consider some of the basic, undisputed facts, and then the law.
First, Mrs. Clinton was worried that communicating through email would leave a trail that might be subject to subpoena. “As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that,” she said in 2000, “why would I ever want to do email?” But when she became secretary of state, she didn’t have much choice. So she set up a private server in her house. That way, in the event of an investigation, she could control which emails would be turned over.
We know this is true because that is exactly what happened. When Congress subpoenaed Mrs. Clinton’s official communications, or when nongovernmental organizations filed Freedom of Information Act requests for the same, the State Department could not turn over her emails because it did not have them.
The State Department must have known that its leader was using a private account. Mrs. Clinton presumably emailed other officials within the department, and the “from” line would have shown clearly that she wasn’t sending the message from a proper government email address.
Mrs. Clinton claims that she never sent any classified or secret information on her private account, though many have noted that she conspicuously left out whether she received such material. Either way the claim is hard to swallow—one would think it would have left her out of the loop—but let’s assume she is telling the truth.
By her own admission, Mrs. Clinton destroyed more than 30,000 emails once the subpoenas started coming in. She claims that she only destroyed personal records. Team Clinton initially explained that her work emails were separated from her personal emails using keyword searches. Now, after the outcry about how much this method might have missed, Mrs. Clinton is insisting that every email was individually read before the deletion.
Still, this leaves questions unanswered. How did those reviewing the emails define “personal”? For instance, if Mrs. Clinton had emailed a foreign government about a donation to the Clinton Foundation, was that message—whatever its interest to watchdogs or voters—tossed in the trash bin?
The law says that no one has to use email, but it is a crime (18 U.S.C. section 1519) to destroy even one message to prevent it from being subpoenaed. Prosecutors charging someone with obstruction don’t even have to establish that any investigation was pending or under way when the deletion took place. As T. Markus Funk explained in ajournal article for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the prosecutor “need only prove that the defendant shredded the documents, at least in part, to make life more difficult for future investigators, if and when they eventually appear.”
Legal commentators call this “anticipatory obstruction of justice,” and the law punishes it with up to 20 years imprisonment. The burden of proof is light. The Justice Department manual advises that section 1519 makes prosecution much easier because it covers “any matters” or “’in relation to or contemplation of’ any matters.” It adds, “No corrupt persuasion is required.”
In addition, rules governing the practice of law forbid attorneys from anticipatory obstruction of justice. These ethics rules are drafted by the American Bar Association, but they are also reflected in real law. Virtually every state court adopts them, and violation can lead to disbarment. Rule 3.4 (which has been around for many years) provides that an attorney shall not unlawfully “conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value.” Mrs. Clinton is a lawyer governed by these rules. So are any attorneys who advised her to delete her emails.
When the Senate Watergate Committee discovered that President Richard Nixon had a very extensive inventory of White House tapes, both the committee and the special prosecutor subpoenaed them. At the time, some wondered why Mr. Nixon, a lawyer before entering politics, didn’t simply destroy the tapes. The answer was that doing so could have led Mr. Nixon to an indictment for obstruction as well as disbarment.
At the time, I was assistant majority counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, so I remember that period well. Mrs. Clinton should remember it too: She worked on the House Impeachment Committee, which warned Nixon not to destroy the tapes.
Here’s another reason Mrs. Clinton should know about obstruction: Congress enacted section 1519, making the crime easier to prove, in 2002, as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. As senator, she voted for the law.
Mr. Rotunda is a professor at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law and the co-author, with John Nowak, of “Treatise on Constitutional Law” (Thomson Reuters, fifth edition, 2013).
jybarz March 18th, 2015 at 02:14
It’s amazing, not surprising though, the rightwing trolls’s frenzy here on LL. Wasting so much of their time coming up with hogwash… talk to my hand, Con Trolls!
William March 18th, 2015 at 02:24
It’s not a waste of time.
Therapy for them
Entertainment for us.
illinoisboy1977 March 18th, 2015 at 09:47
In not signing that form, Mrs. Clinton hasn’t broken any laws. If she signed the form, knowing that she was in possession of Stated Department communications, she committed perjury. The facts so far seem to support the former scenario. As to whether she committed a crime by ordering emails deleted, that is going to be determined by what messages were binned. If Congress really wants to know what was shredded, they can always serve a search warrant on the server’s hard drives and have the deleted data reconstructed. It’s not that hard to have done unless she had them use a scrubber. Then, she’ll need to explain why she felt it necessary to utterly destroy the data in such a manner.
They can use her admission of deletions, combined with her acknowledgement of placing official communications on that server, as probable cause to seize the drives. Especially, with a National Security claim under FISA.
I, personally, don’t care what political party a politician belongs to. I view them all as criminals, until they prove me wrong. It saves time, that way. In my mind, she’s guilty until proven innocent. Politicians, Republican AND Democrat, should ALL be looked upon with suspicion and distaste. They’re going to put their own interests ahead of yours, every time.
Dwendt44 March 18th, 2015 at 17:53
The wacky right is stuck on ‘all e-mails’. The rules concerns only ‘relevant’ e-mails.
An e-mail that says: ” I can’t make lunch as I have to meet with the Prime Minister of Belgium.” isn’t a relevant e-mail and should have been scrubbed.
illinoisboy1977 March 18th, 2015 at 22:28
Agreed. Inconsequential communications should be disregarded.
bahlers March 20th, 2015 at 05:23
Why don’t we let the lawyers and the justice system determine if she broke any laws. On the other hand, her credibility as a leader is shot, and any chances of her securing the bid for the office is now toast.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/12/hillary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/20/national-archives-union-press-state-department-for-answers-over-clinton-email/
Obewon March 20th, 2015 at 08:40
Former guber Jeb blames SoS’ Hillary, Condi & Colin Powell for Bush’s exclusive use of his own private email domain too! http://www.alan.com/2015/03/14/top-republicans-also-used-private-email/
“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.” Jeb / Cheney’16~ even the airheads voting GOP scoff at Bush-III.