It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Finally! Someone else is talking about no IG during Hillary's tenure at State Dept.---about time!!

page: 8
66
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: beyondtruth
a reply to: xuenchen

My question would be, does anyone think that Congress would have been jumping up and down to confirm any nominee of Obama's ?

Obama has waited longer than any recent President for cabinet appointees to get Congressional Confirmation.

link to 538


In 2009 and 2010 ?





posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Thomas Mann addressed a Congressional committee regarding this issue in June 2010, saying in part,


Testimony presented at the first two hearings usefully clarified the origins of unlimited debate in the Senate, circumstances surrounding the adoption of Rule XXII in 1917 and its subsequent amendment, changing norms and practices regarding the use of filibusters, holds, and cloture petitions, and in recent years the extraordinary increase in the frequency of extended-debate-related problems on major measures before the Senate.

I concur with the scholarly consensus that the emergence of an ideologically polarized Senate, with sharp party differences on most important issues, appears to be a major force behind the routinization of the filibuster. The striking unity within each of the party caucuses reflects this ideological separation but also arises from the rough parity between the parties. Control of the Senate is now regularly up for grabs. Both parties have powerful incentives to use the available parliamentary tools to wage a permanent campaign to retain or regain majority status. The resulting procedural arms race has served individual and partisan interests but has diminished the Senate as an institution and weakened the country’s capacity to govern.

The focus of my testimony at this hearing is the impact of the increasing use of filibusters and holds on the Senate confirmation of presidential appointees.


link

Also a story from FOX news in early 2010 says,


President Obama, struggling to staff his administration after a year in office, is blaming Republican efforts to "delay and obstruct" his nominees in the Senate -- and threatening to counteract those tactics with recess appointments.

Over 200 nominations are estimated to still be pending in the Senate, and Obama blames the minority party's "obstinacy," which he says is "rooted not in substantive disagreements but in political expedience."


Also in the same article,


The Obama administration has announced nominees for 569 posts requiring Senate confirmation, according to the White House Transition Group, an independent organization that tracks such positions. The Senate has received 561 of those nominations, but so far only 353 have been confirmed -- just 62 percent of Obama's announced picks, the group reported.
Fox News was unable Wednesday to verify the group's tally with White House officials.

The unconfirmed administration posts, which do not include ambassadors, U.S. attorneys or positions still awaiting nominations from Obama, mark a greater percentage than in the Bush White House, according to the White House Transition Group's research.

After former President George W. Bush's first year in office, the Senate had confirmed 360 of 513 administration posts named -- 70 percent of his announced nominees that year, according to the group.


link

I'm sure we can all remember Congressional Republicans towing the line of wealthy conservative donors who wanted to block any piece of legislation from Obama's White House at the cost of American lives. This has been the story since day one. Black man in White House makes narrow minded Tea Party members uncomfortable and he must be taken down a peg or two.


a reply to: xuenchen

In 2009 and 2010 ?


edit on 1-2-2016 by beyondtruth because: Formatting



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Read This!! Obama was URGED as early as Nov. 2010 to appoint a permanent IG for the State Department because they had serious concerns about the acting IG, Harold Geisel. Why why why did Obama ignore such a strong recommendation considering Geisel's questionable connections? www.pogo.org...



There was no permanent inspector general at the agency during Clinton’s tenure, and the acting IG, Harold Geisel, was a former ambassador under President Bill Clinton. Geisel was also reportedly a close friend of State Department undersecretary for management Patrick Kennedy, who was responsible for State Department security issues.
freebeacon.com... (Bold is mine)

Wow...dots dots and more dots. This thot is plick!!
edit on 1-2-2016 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-2-2016 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: beyondtruth

Well Obama would have had a better excuse if he had simply nominated an IG.

But he didn't did he. And he had many open positions at the time.

That's the whole point.

90° tangents aplenty.




posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: beyondtruth

Well Obama would have had a better excuse if he had simply nominated an IG.

But he didn't did he. And he had many open positions at the time.

That's the whole point.

90° tangents aplenty.


Yeah, it was a bit difficult for the R's to block a nominee when there wasn't one to begin with.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Agreed. I am by no means trying to provide cover for the Administration, but merely adding a crucial layer to the story that both sides are equally as guilty in all matters pertaining to the situation our Republic is currently in. And to point out how some people seem to hold a double standard when enforcing a strict constitutional adherence to one party but not the other, or one individual more than others on the opposite side of the Isle with the same culpability.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: beyondtruth

Wherever this investigation takes The American People, whether in the R realm or the D realm, we need to resolve it. We deserve better than what we have been getting. Our national security and our pocketbooks are at stake. We are tired of the corruption and the misuse of public trust.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: beyondtruth
So in between baby decapitation and her husband being a perv did you get any evidence to support the theory that HC is responsible for the events that unfolded in Benghazi? OK so there were some creative fables told after the attack took place. I have a feeling the people calling for HC head based on the events in Benghazi alone are not the same ones who blame the former President GWB for repeated failures of intelligence leading up to 9/11. How many officials were imprisoned for that one? Did anyone even lose their job? Your ideological bias is showing. And this is coming from someone who believes that Hillary should be facing prosecution for her poor handling of classified material via a severe case of negligence.


originally posted by: pyramid head

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: queenofswords



People that say, just sit back and wait are usually followers, not leaders.


Patience is a virtue. Acting on emotion or bad information in the heat of the moment can have deadly consequences.

Just ask an Iraq vet.



Maybe these lyin' thieving' criminals are counting on these types of do-nothing Americans to just buy their bs hook, line, and sinker.

Not this time!



What are you going to do? Please educate me. The only choices I see for us is to wait and see what the investigation produces and if you don't like the results, use your vote to try and effect change.

Is your solution to storm the White House and Congress?

Seriously, what the hell are you going to do?


Patience is not a virtue when it comes to this witch. Her husbands a pedophile rapist, and she's just as evil. Do you need to see her decapitate a baby on live television for her to go to prison?

Benghazi was enough for most people, hopefully the arrogance of her latest crime against the republic will put her in prison.


If you still need someone to explain Benghazi to you, then your the type I was referring to about needed to see a decapitation to finally be outraged.

There are only two fables concerning Benghazi, the first being the video the state dept said started it, and the second is anything the state dept said afterwards.

Bush was out of office, killary wasn't. At the end of the day she allowed weapons to given to al Qaeda, for reasons unknown, probably money, and let several people get murdered to protect her and the state depts illegal activity.

She's a war criminal and traitor to the republic.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
To put it very simply, the IG is the eagle that watches over the hen house to make sure the foxes don't eat the chickens.

Without an IG, the foxes had free reign to eat all the chickens that they wanted.


Judge: Ms. Clinton, you are charged with doing 90 mph in a school zone... how do you plead?
Clinton: Innocent Your Honor, the school zone was not marked, and that's how you know it was a school zone.
Judge: You didn't see the school, or the buses, or any of the children?
Clinton: I don't recall, but I do specifically remember that there were no markings indicating I was in a school zone.

When you put Hillarys defensive arguments into a different perspective, you can quickly see how silly they are.

There was a reason there was no IG at the State Department.... it wasn't an accidental oversight.
edit on R272016-02-01T13:27:48-06:00k272Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
To put it very simply, the IG is the eagle that watches over the hen house to make sure the foxes don't eat the chickens.

Without an IG, the foxes had free reign to eat all the chickens that they wanted.


Judge: Ms. Clinton, you are charged with doing 90 mph in a school zone... how do you plead?
Clinton: Innocent Your Honor, the school zone was not marked, and that's how you know it was a school zone.
Judge: You didn't see the school, or the buses, or any of the children?
Clinton: I don't recall, but I do specifically remember that there were no markings indicating I was in a school zone.

When you put Hillarys defensive arguments into a different perspective, you can quickly see how silly they are.

There was a reason there was no IG at the State Department.... it wasn't an accidental oversight.


Good example. The only thing is...if there were no markings in the school zone, it was perhaps immoral and unethical, but would it be illegal or criminal?

Hillary strikes me as a person that knows exactly just how far to go right up to the line and plans it all out with the most tangled legal web she can weave. Obfuscation and deceitful methods are her strong suit. She thinks (knows) she is smarter than the average bear and can get away with murder counting on others being intimidated by her exceptional psychopathic abilities.

Now my question is: Is the administration complicit, negligent, lazy, or something else?



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

There was an interim State Department IG. His name was Harold Geisel.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords



Good example. The only thing is...if there were no markings in the school zone, it was perhaps immoral and unethical, but would it be illegal or criminal?


Absolutely correct. Laws are laws and no matter how good or bad of a hypothetical example we can make-up, what matters is if she is guilty of committing a crime.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

There was an interim State Department IG. His name was Harold Geisel.


He was the Obama bird dog.

Official sued to keep Clinton State documents secret

in 2008 Geisel contributed $2,300 to Barack Obama

Very BIG Hmmm

and a big WINK WINK





posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

"There was an interim State Department IG. His name was Harold Geisel."

www.washingtonexaminer.com...


Sixteen days after he filed the demand in federal court, Geisel was replaced by Steven Linick. The Senate confirmed Linick in September of 2013. The drafts in question showed the inspector general's office had removed damaging findings about high-level interference at the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, which is tasked with investigating allegations of misconduct among diplomatic officials. Deleted findings that appear in the drafts, but not the final report, suggested State Department officials had at times blocked investigations that might have embarrassed ambassadors or other "rising stars" in the agency.


There sure was... and he turned out to be a fox instead of an eagle..... you had a fox watching over the hen house to to make sure the foxes didn't eat the chickens.

You always do the same crap on every Hillary thread... pick and choose your one line statements to suit your agenda, while completely ignoring all other relative information that doesn't suit your agenda.

You are 100% correct that there was an temporary IG, but you also ignore that he was involved in some nefarious activities because it doesn't make your case look very good.

So in order to meet your standards, I will revise my statement:

There was a reason there was no permanent/full time IG at the State Department.... it wasn't an accidental oversight.
edit on R182016-02-01T14:18:33-06:00k182Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R202016-02-01T14:20:13-06:00k202Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R232016-02-01T14:23:05-06:00k232Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



You always so the same crap on every Hillary thread... pick and choose your statements to suit your agenda,


I was addressing your claim that there was no IG at the SD. That's all I found of interest in your post.



while completely ignoring all other relative information that doesn't suit your agenda.


How was your simple, completely irrelevant hypothetical example "relative information"?

And what is my agenda? I'd like to know. All I do in these threads is ask what laws she has broken and people come unglued. If I came to these threads and spread lies and disinformation, that would be ok with you as long as it fit your agenda.

I'm asking for truth. You're asking for confirmation bias.

No thanks.



You are 100% correct that there was an temporary IG


Ok, then how can you have the audacity to lecture me on "suiting agendas" when you agree that I was correct?



but you also ignore that he was involved in some nefarious activities because it doesn't make your case look very good.


I didn't bring it up because it is off-topic. I merely pointed out that you were wrong, there was a temporary IG. If you want to talk about him, make a thread. Just because I didn't take the thread off-topic does not mean I do not know what he is accused of.

You make way too many assumptions.



There was a reason there was no permanent/full time IG at the State Department.... it wasn't an accidental oversight.


Ah, the conspiracies.

Only thing I can do is ask you to prove that claim.
edit on 1-2-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

"I didn't bring it up because it is off-topic. I merely pointed out that you were wrong, there was a temporary IG. If you want to talk about him, make a thread. Just because I didn't take the thread off-topic does not mean I do not know what he is accused of.

You make way too many assumptions. "

It's off topic to talk about the temporary IG's shady history in a thread about IG's at the State Department while Hillary was SoS?

I don't follow that logic.

Feel free to explain to the masses how in the world that is possibly off topic?

You keep talking about people making assumptions and all I see is you making an "assumption" that talking about an IG is off topic in thread about IG's.

I need more popcorn



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa



It's off topic to talk about the temporary IG's shady history in a thread about IG's at the State Department while Hillary was SoS?


Considering our line of discussion, I thought it was. That's my opinion. This thread is about there not being an IG in the SD, which is false. The thread is not about the temporary IG's shady dealings.

The fact remains that you said "there was a reason there was no IG at the State Department", and that is false.



You keep talking about people making assumptions and all I see is you making an "assumption" that talking about an IG is off topic in thread about IG's.


Not an assumption. The thread is not about the temp IG's dealings.

It is my opinion that it was off-topic.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Yay!
A Clinton appointee/crony as acting IG at the State Department with a Clinton as SOS....
What could go wrong for them?



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: beyondtruth

Really, while there have been a few high profile blocks, the Republicans have more or less confirmed almost any halfway reasonable nominee to most any position Obama has made.

Look at Kagan and Sotomayor, there may have been a media fuss, but there wasn't anything like a fight over either of them. Almost every position Obama has staffed has his appointees.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

www.washingtonexaminer.com...


State Department officials blocked investigations into potentially embarrassing allegations of misconduct from agency investigators and even inspector general staff during Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. A former official in the State Department inspector general's office who was involved with preparing the sanitized report said agency officials also interfered in probes originating in the Office of the Inspector General.


Despite arguments to the contrary, I believe that talking about the temporary IG at the State Department while Hillary was SoS is 100% on topic in this thread about IG's at the State Department while Hillary was SoS and open for discussion.

If someone feels strongly that this is not the case, feel free to contact a moderator and ask their opinion. Otherwise...let's talk!

Who put this guy in the position of temp IG?

edit on R572016-02-01T14:57:55-06:00k572Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R012016-02-01T15:01:44-06:00k012Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
66
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join