Gail Collins, "Republicans, Widows and Porn": Sisters in Arms

Tweet

"There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!"

- Madeleine Albright, speaking on behalf of Hillary Clinton's candidacy

Yesterday I observed that The Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, Yahoo News, Bloomberg and UPI had all published articles concerning the State Department subpoena served on the Clinton Foundation, but The New York Times decided to ignore the matter entirely. I asked whether the Times is still a newspaper or if it has become a highly politicized, self-serving propaganda machine. Well, maybe I was too harsh on the Times. After all, during the PBS "NewsHour" Democratic debate on Thursday, Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff remarkably failed to ask Hillary a single question about the subpoena.

I supposed that it should come as no surprise that in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Republicans, Widows and Porn," Gail Collins also fails today to mention the subpoena. Instead she reserves most of her criticism for Ted Cruz ("The run-up to this weekend’s Republican debate was greatly enlivened by the news that Amy Lindsay, an alum of 'Animal Lust' and 'Whose Thong Is It Anyway?,' was starring in a Cruz campaign ad") and Donald Trump ("it might provide the opportunity for someone to recall that the widow in question once referred to the man who is now the leading Republican presidential candidate as 'a maggot, a cockroach and a crumb'").

So what is more important? The pulling of a Cruz advertisement or service of a subpoena upon the Clinton Foundation? We obviously know what's more important for Gail.

But don't worry, Gail! You've got good company! In a guest Times op-ed entitled "My Undiplomatic Moment," Madeleine Albright attempts to explain away her "special place in hell" comment supporting Hillary's candidacy. Albright writes:

"However, I do want to explain why I so firmly believe that, even today, women have an obligation to help one another. In a society where women often feel pressured to tear one another down, our saving grace lies in our willingness to lift one another up. And while young women may not want to hear anything more from this aging feminist, I feel it is important to speak to women coming of age at a time when a viable female presidential candidate, once inconceivable, is a reality."

Hillary is a "viable" candidate? Sorry, Madeleine, but the State Department subpoena (you remember the State Department, don't you, Maddy?) served on the Clinton Foundation did away with that viability. As Chris Cillizza wrote in a Washington Post article entitled "Hillary Clinton’s week just went from bad to worse":

"There is, without question, a desire on the part of many Republicans to cast Clinton in the worst possible light using almost any means necessary. But it strains credulity to believe that Republicans somehow concocted a way to get the State Department and the FBI to look into Clinton's tenure at State."

Hillary's candidacy will unravel when the FBI makes its recommendations. She would be doing the United States, the Democratic Party and women a favor by ending her presidential bid now and not later, unless it is her intention to demonstrate conclusively that female politicians are just as despicable as male politicians.

Hillary Should Be Indicted, But Will Obama Permit It?

Tweet

Transmission and storage of top secret government data by means of Hillary's home server was a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 793(f) - Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information, but will Obama allow her to be indicted?

In a must-read New York Post article entitled "‘This was all planned’: Former IG says Hillary, State Dept. are lying" by Paul Sperry, we are told of the opinion of Howard J. Krongard, who was the US State Department's inspector general from 2005 to 2008. Sperry writes:

"The State Department is lying when it says it didn’t know until it was too late that Hillary Clinton was improperly using personal e-mails and a private server to conduct official business — because it never set up an agency e-mail address for her in the first place, the department’s former top watchdog says.

. . . .

He says 'the key' to the FBI’s investigation of Emailgate is determining how highly sensitive state secrets in the classified network, known as SIPRNet, ended up in Clinton’s personal e-mails.

. . . .

FBI agents are focusing on three of Clinton’s top department aides. Most of the 1,340 Clinton e-mails deemed classified by intelligence agency reviewers were sent to her by her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, or her deputy chiefs, Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan, who now hold high positions in Clinton’s presidential campaign."

So of course, the emails in Hillary's servers were not marked "Confidential," because her aides, who allegedly removed the top secret data from SIPRNet and sent it to Hillary, did not mark it as such. However, Hillary's claim that the emails are not marked confidential is a red herring, given that criminal liability is not predicated upon such labeling.

Krongard says that Hillary will not be indicted:

"For one, he says, any criminal referral to the Justice Department from the FBI 'will have to go through four loyal Democrat women' — Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, who heads the department’s criminal division; Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates; Attorney General Loretta Lynch; and top White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

Even if they accept the referral, he says, the case quickly and quietly will be plea-bargained down to misdemeanors punishable by fines in a deal similar to the one Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, secured for Gen. David Petraeus. In other words, a big slap on the wrist."

Indeed, criminal charges will not be filed against the IRS's Lois Lerner, so why shouldn't Hillary enjoy the same benefits?

However, there is another powerful reason why Hillary will not be touched: Her email correspondence with President Obama via her private email address. You will recall that Obama claimed on 60 Minutes that he had no knowledge of Hillary's private server.

Or stated otherwise, the United States is fast becoming a banana republic with one set of laws for those serving the president's interests, and another for the plebeians. This outrage, and not Obamacare or the unsigned nuclear agreement with Iran, could well be Obama's lasting legacy.

Associated Press, "State Dept. plans release of Clinton emails by next January": Emails or Portions of Emails?

Today, an Associated Press article appearing in The Washington Post entitled "State Dept. plans release of Clinton emails by next January" begins:

"By Associated Press May 19 at 1:36 AM

WASHINGTON — The State Department has proposed releasing portions of 55,000 pages of e-mails from former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by next January.

The department made the proposal in a federal court filing Monday night, in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Vice News."

Note the difference between the headline, which refers to the release of emails (possibly even all of Clinton's emails), and what immediately follows in the text, which refers to the release of "portions" of emails.

Yes, there is a difference.

[See also the same headline and the same first two paragraphs in an Associated Press article being published by ABC News, home of George Stephanopoulos.]

Iran: The US State Department's Fact Sheet Concerning the Lausanne Understanding is WRONG!

Iran's Fars News Agency is now reporting that Seyed Abbas Araqchi, Iran's Deputy Lead Negotiator in the talks, is saying that the US State Department's "fact sheet" detailing the Lausanne nuclear development understanding is inaccurate regarding the critical issue of sanctions. As reported by Fars News:

"This is a wrong impression about the Lausanne understanding," Araqchi told the state-run TV on Saturday.

"The Lausanne statement explicitly states that the sanctions will be annulled; all nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions will be removed in the first stage," Araqchi stressed.

 

He said the contents of the White House factsheet about the Lausanne agreements are wrong, and the statements made by  the (US State Department) spokeswoman are wrong too," Araqchi added.

 

He reiterated that economic sanctions and restrictions against Iran will be removed in the first stage of the implementation of the agreement.

 

"And if the Americans have an impression other than this, well it will surely be the topic of negotiations in the next round of the talks," Araqchi added.

Heck, Iran needs the money ASAP in order to fund its Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthi proxies.

No Decision on Iran; U.S. Undersecretary of State Burns: "It Was a Very Useful Session"

Meeting on Saturday, representatives from the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, Russia and China failed to reach any determination concerning measures to halt Iranian development of nuclear weapons. The only decision made by the six nations was to meet again in the future, but no date was set. The U.S. representative, Undersecretary of State William Burns, said of the meeting:

“It was a very useful session.”

According to the Financial Times :

"The meeting came after Iran ignored an end of 2009 deadline set by US President Barack Obama for it to respond to an offer from the six powers of economic and political incentives in exchange for halting its nuclear enrichment program."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/27d3a52e-02df-11df-86b3-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

How strange! Only days earlier, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Philip J. Crowley asserted:

". . . what we have always said throughout the year was that at the end of the year we would assess where we are. But that’s not a deadline."

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/dec/133951.htm

Hey, Hillary, that's quite a comedy team you've got there in Burns and Crowley. ("Say goodnight, Philip.")

In other related news, Egyptian daily newspaper Al-Ahram stated in an op-ed on Saturday that the director of Israel's Mossad, Meir Dagan, is "Israel's superman" for successfully thwarting the Iranian nuclear program:

". . . without Dagan, the Iranian nuclear program would have been complete years ago. Nevertheless, the director of the Israeli Mossad, whose name is mostly unknown, works away from the limelight and the eyes of the media."

http://www.almanar.com.lb/newsSite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=120117&language=en

Al-Ahram does not write anything without the approval of the president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, and herein lies further proof that Egypt fears Iran far more than Israel.

U.S. State Department on Iran: Testing the Limits of Hogwash

A comedy routine at the U.S. State Department? Yup, and it ranks right up there with Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?". Those of you who can take the five minutes to read the transcript in its entirety, I promise mirth and hilarity (now spelled "Hillary-ty"). For those who fear dismissal for wasting precious office time, I present you with the following highlights from the December 22 press briefing of Assistant Secretary Philip J. Crowley, available via "U.S. Department of State, Diplomacy in Action" (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/dec/133951.htm):

MR. CROWLEY: . . . And finally, a few of you have asked about the schedule of the Secretary of State over the next few days. I can tell you this morning the Secretary departed Washington and she stopped at the North Pole for an important bilateral meeting with a well known international figure. . . . [I'm not making this up.]

. . . .

QUESTION: Can I ask about the conference call [teleconference with P-5+1 counterparts re Iran]?

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: What, if anything, was accomplished on this call?

MR. CROWLEY: . . . We’re in this period where we’re taking stock of Iran’s inability, unwillingness to respond to the – our offer of dialogue and the specific offer regarding the research reactor that was put on the table in Geneva and now sits on the table at the IAEA.

. . . .

QUESTION: Well, I guess I’m just confused as why you even had this call. . . .

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, we have – I mean, this is an issue that is not about the United States alone. It’s about the international community. We are not the only ones who have concerns about the current trajectory. And so this is part --

. . . .

QUESTION: How did this improve anything? What’s different after the call than before?

MR. CROWLEY: . . . And we are at that point where we are consulting broadly within the P-5+1, but beyond that, so that come 2010, should Iran continue in its current posture, that there will be implications and consequences for their failure to take advantage of this opportunity.

QUESTION: How far into 2010 --

. . . .

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, we have a range of – I mean, we’ve – there are sanctions that are available that are on Iran right now. We will continue to look at ways both bilaterally and multilaterally that we can add to that mix and increase the cost to Iran of its inability or unwillingness to resolve the concerns the international community has about its nuclear program.

QUESTION: But, I mean, how far into 2010? . . . .

MR. CROWLEY: . . . The offer of engagement remains available to Iran, but at the same time, we have said that we are prepared to take additional steps. . . .

QUESTION: No, I understand that, that you’ll always have this kind of dual track available. But come the beginning of the year . . . are you going to move towards imposing new sanctions against Iran?

MR. CROWLEY: I wouldn’t put a particular date or deadline on this. . . . And obviously, going forward, will something dramatically happen on January 4th? No. But there is a point at which we will intensify our discussions around the country, and I would think at some point, we would be in a position to take some action with our partners through the various fora that are available to us.

QUESTION: I’m sorry, could you just – can you just kind of specify or put a finer point on “at some point?” . . . .

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, this is where it’s always been, which is we have a two-track strategy. One track is engagement, one track is pressure. And these have never been mutually exclusive. Even today, we continue to look for ways to strengthen and fully implement the sanctions that are already on Iran. At the same time, we’re looking at additional steps that we could take nationally and internationally should the President make that determination.

QUESTION: Given that this deadline seems to be a little bit soft, do you think in the future you’ll --

MR. CROWLEY: Let me just – Andy, sorry to interrupt you, but what we have always said throughout the year was that at the end of the year we would assess where we are. But that’s not a deadline . . . .

***************

My queries after reading the foregoing:

"Diplomacy in Action"? Is this some new State Department oxymoron?

"Crippling sanctions" or "crippled U.S. foreign policy"?

"Deadlines" or "dead in the water"?

And finally, at what point does hogwash transcend bull twaddle and penetrate the ethereal limits of Jabberwocky?