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

a reply to: RickinVa

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

Go for it. I don't feel strongly about it either way.

It's funny how you said there wasn't an IG, but after that was shown to be incorrect, you move focus to him and not your utter incompetence on the issue.

Misdirection.......intellectual dishonesty.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

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

Go for it. I don't feel strongly about it either way.

It's funny how you said there wasn't an IG, but after that was shown to be incorrect, you move focus to him and not your utter incompetence on the issue.

Misdirection.......intellectual dishonesty.

Focus on the ball not the player,,,, the first sign of a weak argument is to attack the debater, and not the debate.

The first sign someone might be losing the game is if they cry foul.

I'm not making a personal attack. You didn't know what you are talking about and when proven wrong have tried to change the focus of discussion.

Misdirection and intellectual dishonesty is your tactic.

Once again man..... tell me or anyone else for that matter how talking about the temp IG in a thread about there was no IG is misdirection or intellectual dishonesty?

By that logic, since the title of the thread is "Finally! Someone else is talking about no IG during Hillary's tenure at State Dept.---about time!!", the mere mention of the fact that there was a temporary IG by your own logic, would be considered off topic.

"Misdirection and intellectual dishonesty is your tactic." Do you ever look in a mirror?

Refusing to focus on the question of what the temporary Inspector General of the State Department did while Hillary was Secretary of State is a lame attempt to distract from...what the temporary Inspector General did at the State Department while Hillary was SoS.

Knock it off

The topic of the thread is "Finally! Someone else is talking about no IG during Hillary's tenure at State Dept.---about time!! ". It is not who is and is not on topic. In fact, that discussion is off topic.

Please get back to the topic, and not each other. Alert off topic posts, don't point them out and start a discussion about them.

And don't reply to this post

bigfatfurrytexan
Forum Moderator

Nevermind.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I have to (sadly) agree totally with Jaded...a good portion of the people in this country (the "voting public") spend more of their brain power and attention span on which Super Bowl commercial is funniest or who gets the freeking Oscar for Best Actor. As long as their cable TV works and the corner convenience store stocks their Bud Light, they just don't give a rodent's rump who is in the White House, or who lied about what, and or which corrupt official covered up something...

a reply to: introvert

Did you even read the letter sent to President Barack Obama November 2010 from POGO which link I posted on the previous page of this thread? If you haven't, I suggest you read the information contained in that letter and ask yourself why Obama blew it off.

Allowing that man, Harold Geisel, to remain acting IG is unconscionable based on this one letter alone. Obama had a reason for not appointing a proper permanent Inspector General. Harold Geisel is part of this puzzle.

The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is an independent nonprofit that investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct in order to achieve a more effective, accountable, open and ethical federal government. As such, we have a strong interest in working to ensure that every federal agency has an independent and aggressive permanent Inspector General (IG)

POGO does not believe Geisel can appropriately act as an independent IG if he has a real or perceived conflict of interest with a senior official in the State Department whose responsibilities are often the target of the IG’s audits and investigations.

Of particular concern is Geisel’s relationship with State Under Secretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy. Kennedy “is responsible for the people, resources, facilities, technology, consular affairs, and securityof the Department of State,” according to his State Department biography.[26] The matters under his purview are the types of issues routinely investigated and audited by any independent and effective IG.

(bolding is mine).

Oh, yeah! This acting IG is definitely important to this discussion.

And while we're at it, let's add Patrick F. Kennedy as a connecting dot.

I am not going to use the word I am thinking just yet, but this is so much more than "an oversight"!!!!

a reply to: queenofswords

Aren't we? We're allowing this to drag on and on and on. Eventually the fish is going to wriggle off the hook, unless she's landed.

There is a lot of smoke here. Send in the fire dept. and see what's going on inside. Open and public congressional hearings ala the Watergate hearings.

There was a lot less, as I recall--I wasn't very old, during Watergate. Wouldn't it be ironic if someone who fought to bring down an administration would go down in much the same way??

a reply to: seagull

Wouldn't it be ironic if someone who fought to bring down an administration would go down in much the same way??

Slow clap and a big smile.

She was fired from that team for.... being unethical.

a reply to: queenofswords

I learn new things everyday on ATS, some I would have missed if I didn't read ATS

More and more comes out everyday... lots of dots:

1. Hillary Clinton
2. Huma Abedin
3. Cheryl Mills
4. Jake Sullivan
5. Bryan Pagliano
6. Patrick Kennedy
7. Harold Geisel
8. Sidney Blumenthal
9. Tyler Drumheller

More and more dots everyday!!

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

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

Go for it. I don't feel strongly about it either way.

It's funny how you said there wasn't an IG, but after that was shown to be incorrect, you move focus to him and not your utter incompetence on the issue.

Misdirection.......intellectual dishonesty.

There's virtually always an acting, or temp, or interim, when there ISN'T something. The not-so-real-IG can certainly be a shill in various ways. What's off-topic about that, especially if there was shilling that went on ?

All this talk of the whole thing is going to POP, the fallout will be incredible,
insane fraud, damning emails.

Call me cynical but I don't believe anything will change.
Maybe after the next election should the republicans win, there could be an investigation.
Or Hillary wins and .... well we know.

I know it's a big deal and i'm not trying to downplay the significance of what has been going on
but like in any gang (and all sides are in the gang) they'll protect each other from us plebs
rather than attack each other.

If Hillary goes down I guess a lot would go down with her.
Therefore like Benghazi and the Iran Contra deal, it will be pretty much swept under the carpet,while the few of us know about it continue to shake our heads and the General population will look at you like you have 3 heads.

Much as I hate to think it, this has the feel of the JFK assassination.

Maybe the GOP will all support Obama and Lynch ignoring it, secretly behind closed doors.

"For the good of the country". "Nothing good can come of" putting Hillary in jail, even if she should be.

I would disagree, that plenty of good would come of stopping this creeping, growing corruption in the government. The people need to see somebody called to account for once.

But, just as somebody (LBJ ? Nixon ? Castro ? Kruschev ? Mafia ?) should have been held accountable, the beltway inner circle doesn't see the need for such commotion. It just disturbs their never-ending party.

a reply to: RickinVa

I respect your opinion, and appreciate your sacrifices for
our country-- in whatever sense it could anymore be
called such. I was thinking in the last two years of this
descent into a muted tyranny that many current historians
are sharing your feelings about what must be done to
avert a total dictatorship.

My fear is we'll soon get one or the other, in the face from
the military or subtly per the puppet masters-- and I've seen
the results close up of what happens when soldiers follow
bad orders. I'd rather get dragged off than dragged through
it again... but that would probably be up to the Colonels
by now. I hopefully believe the latter is more likely a shakeout.

What ever general staff is left seems to be getting even
more cherry picked to drag us ALL [/i off unless somebody
smells the coffee... whether it's the CiC or another CEO.
I'm way too old to pick and run LOL. The jello is setting up
quickly though, Rick.. keep a dry pair of socks in sight.