Huma Abedin admits that Clinton burned daily schedules

a reply to: Rosinitiate

I think perhaps you missed my point my friend.
And I wouldn't vote for a pig even with lipstick.

: )

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Abedin testified to unneeded copies of schedules being destroyed.

What Hillary believes she needs to preserve following Federal Record keeping
is only correlated to protecting herself from prosecution.

a reply to: Gryphon66

She did break the law by destroying the copies as well as scrubbing her schedule of meetings with donors.

44 USC Chapter 31 - RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY FEDERAL AGENCIES

§ 3101. Records management by agency heads; general duties

The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.

§ 3102. Establishment of program of management

The head of each Federal agency shall establish and maintain an active, continuing program for the economical and efficient management of the records of the agency. The program, among other things, shall provide for

(1) effective controls over the creation and over the maintenance and use of records in the conduct of current business;

(2) cooperation with the Archivist in applying standards, procedures, and techniques designed to improve the management of records, promote the maintenance and security of records deemed appropriate for preservation, and facilitate the segregation and disposal of records of temporary value; and

(3) compliance with sections 2101-2117, 2501-2507, 2901-2909, and 3101-3107, of this title and the regulations issued under them.

§ 3103. Transfer of records to records centers

When the head of a Federal agency determines that such action may affect substantial economies or increased operating efficiency, the head of such agency shall provide for the transfer of records to a records center maintained and operated by the Archivist, or, when approved by the Archivist, to a center maintained and operated by the head of the Federal agency.

§ 3104. Certifications and determinations on transferred records

An official of the Government who is authorized to certify to facts on the basis of records in such official’s custody, may certify to facts on the basis of records that have been transferred by such official or such official’s predecessors to the Archivist, and may authorize the Archivist to certify to facts and to make administrative determinations on the basis of records transferred to the Archivist, notwithstanding any other law.

§ 3105. Safeguards

The head of each Federal agency shall establish safeguards against the removal or loss of records the head of such agency determines to be necessary and required by regulations of the Archivist. Safeguards shall include making it known to officials and employees of the agency--

(1) that records in the custody of the agency are not to be alienated or destroyed except in accordance with sections 3301-3314 of this title, and

(2) the penalties provided by law for the unlawful removal or destruction of records.

§ 3106. Unlawful removal, destruction of records

(a) FEDERAL AGENCY NOTIFICATION.—The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, corruption, deletion, erasure, or other destruction of records in the custody of the agency, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records the head of the Federal agency knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from that agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to the legal custody of that Federal agency.

(b) ARCHIVIST NOTIFICATION.—In any case in which the head of the Federal agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action described in subsection (a), or is participating in, or believed to be participating in any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.

§ 3107. Authority of Comptroller General

Chapters 21, 25, 27, 29, and 31 of this title do not limit the authority of the Comptroller General of the United States with respect to prescribing accounting systems, forms, and procedures, or lessen the responsibility of collecting and disbursing officers for rendition of their accounts for settlement by the General Accounting Office.

Maybe I missed it. Feel free to point out where Hillary destroyed the records with the approval of the archivist.

She broke the law no matter how her supporters try to down play / ignore / spin / obfuscate / distort / wish she didn't.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Destroying a copy is not destroying the record.

There is no part of this law that requires the Secretary of State to keep a daily journal of activities.


Once again, you offer a quote of law that does not apply except in your own belief. This is not evidence of wrong-doing, merely evidence of your belief in wrong-doing.

Again, if you were as familiar with the rules of evidence as you claim to be, you would know this.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You are not understanding. She cannot destroy any record, even if its a duplicate. The archivist is responsible for making those determinations, as the law I linked explains.

No one said anything about her not keeping a log. The issue is her going back and removing information from 75 of those logs.

Its up there with Clintons claims about what emails are government and whats personal. Neither Clinton, her lawyer nor her aides can lawfully make those determinations. The archivist must make those determinations.

Understand it now? Or are you intentionally grasping at straws?

Please explain what rules of evidence have to do with her criminal actions. Based on your use of that term it would be you who has no clue.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I do understand, I disagree. You can either keep a civil tongue in your head when you address me, or you will be ignored.

I'm not "grasping at straws" at all. You are blinded by your partisan views on this topic, and want desperately to be seen as an authority on the law, and an authority on guilt.

I challenge that specifically, because no one who is familiar with the LE or criminological concepts of evidence would be so willing to "fill in the gaps" as you regularly do to make your case. You overgeneralize, gloss over, make connections that don't exist, etc.

I see that you don't even understand that you're arguing about evidence ... what are you offering here? You are claiming that Federal law has been broken. What are you offering as proof of that? Or more accurately, what are you repeating as proof of that? as you very rarely do much more than chime in with long quotes of irrelevant Federal law and then declare "see! guilty!"

If you don't recognize the very basic structure of your claim, I don't SEE THAT there's any reason for us to converse.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So your response is to once again start a circular argument by asking for information that has already been posted in this thread.

As for civil tone you should practice what you preach. Instead of taking the time to understand you attack me for pointing out the laws clinton is breaking. Again you are lost on the evidence comment.

What gaps did I fill in?

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Rosinitiate

I think perhaps you missed my point my friend.
And I wouldn't vote for a pig even with lipstick.

: )

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Abedin testified to unneeded copies of schedules being destroyed.

What Hillary believes she needs to preserve following Federal Record keeping
is only correlated to protecting herself from prosecution.

... and your comments about what someone else did when you have no idea about the specifics of that that action is merely your opinion presented as fact.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

So your response is to once again start a circular argument by asking for information that has already been posted in this thread.

As for civil tone you should practice what you preach. Instead of taking the time to understand you attack me for pointing out the laws clinton is breaking. Again you are lost on the evidence comment.

What gaps did I fill in?

No, it is not a circular argument to point out that your claims are not accurate. Attack you? Nope, I attacked your argument, your claims, and your presentation. It is simply logical to state that you don't have the experience you claim when you make such blatant mistakes in form and content.

"What gaps?" LOL. Here's your pattern: quote the law, make statements about Clinton breaking the law while providing no direct evidence, declare her guilty.

Can you prove that Clinton removed 75 items from her schedules? Don't just state it ... PROVE IT WITH EVIDENCE.

EDIT: Again, from the AP article that you're chiming in here about:

No known federal laws were violated and some omissions could be blamed on Clinton's highly fluid schedule, which sometimes forced late cancellations. But only seven meetings in Clinton's planning schedules were replaced by substitute events on her official calendar. More than 60 other events listed in Clinton's planners were omitted entirely in her calendar, tersely noted or described only as "private meetings" — all without naming those who met with her.

Apparently, some of you armchair experts don't realize what a "burn bag" actually is:

A burn bag is the informal name given to a container (usually a paper bag or some other waste receptacle) that holds sensitive or classified documents which are to be destroyed by fire or pulping after a certain period of time. The most common usage of burn bags is by government institutions, in the destruction of classified materials. Destruction via burn bags is considered superior to shredding, because shredded documents may be reconstructed. After the capture of the United States embassy in Tehran during the Iran hostage crisis, shredded documents were turned over for painstaking manual reconstruction, which revealed to Iran some U.S. operations including spies. A picture of one such reassembled document can be seen at the George Washington University website. Today, scanners and computers can reconstruct shredded documents very quickly. Burn bags are designed to facilitate the destruction process by not requiring the removal of the items to be destroyed beforehand and by indicating if the items require special procedures.

Wiki - Burn Bag

I give you Wikipedia because a) easy to reference b) anyone who knew what Abedin was actually talking about already knew the truth.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
No, it is not a circular argument to point out that your claims are not accurate.

It is a circular argument and one you constantly use to derail threads. The comments are accurate.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Attack you? Nope, I attacked your argument, your claims, and your presentation. It is simply logical to state that you don't have the experience you claim when you make such blatant mistakes in form and content.

Yes you attacked me and my argument. Once again you are lost on the evidence comment.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"What gaps?" LOL. Here's your pattern: quote the law, make statements about Clinton breaking the law while providing no direct evidence, declare her guilty.

Wrong as usual. I post the source and other links to support my argument. I post the law that was violated. You are hell bent on putting the word guilty in everyone's mouth and you should really stop doing that. It also shows you are only seeing what you want to see and by constantly making that comment when the only person who uses the word guilty is you supports that observation.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Can you prove that Clinton removed 75 items from her schedules? Don't just state it ... PROVE IT WITH EVIDENCE.

Moving the goal post again I see. Lets look at both -
Clinton's aide testified under oath Clinton burned her schedules / copies of her schedules - OP source.
The law governing federal records was posted and the applicable section bolded - US Code
You argued that because they are copies the law was not violated - You are wrong
The law in question does not make any exceptions and is specific in terms of who is authorized to take action on government documents - The archivist as the law states.
The archivist was never notified that was occurring.

By placing those records in a burn bag Clinton violated the law in question.


Editing of 75 records -
Emails by Clinton to her aides, including Huma, that she wants to avoid the possibility of her personal business emails being subject to FOIA laws. That directive plays into the 75 entries being edited / scrubbed as the same aides who received her directive on personal emails were the ones responsible for the calendar and the daily schedule (Huma and Lona J. Valmoro).

The AP's lawsuit revealed the logs showed the names / groups she met with, which were identified as political allies / donors / business interests. When those logs were compared to her Calendar the dates in question had been altered, removing the names of the people / groups / political allies she met with.

Unlike Clinton's planning schedules, which were sent to Clinton each morning, her calendar was edited after each event, the AP's review showed. Some calendar entries were accompanied by Valmoro emails — indicating she may have added those entries. Every meeting entry also included both the planned time of the event and the actual time — showing that Clinton's calendar was being used to document each meeting after it ended.

Despite the omission, Clinton's State Department planning schedules from the same day listed the names of all Clinton's breakfast guests — most of whose firms had lobbied the government and donated to her family's global charity. The event was closed to the press and merited only a brief mention in her calendar, which omitted all her guests' names — among them Blackstone Group Chairman Steven Schwarzman, PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi and then-New York Bank of Mellon CEO Robert Kelly.

Clinton's calendar also repeatedly omitted private dinners and meetings with political donors, policy sessions with groups of corporate leaders and "drop-bys" with old Clinton campaign hands and advisers. Among those whose names were omitted from her calendar were longtime adviser Sidney Blumenthal, consultant and former Clinton White House chief of staff Thomas "Mack" McLarty, former energy lobbyist Joseph Wilson and entertainment magnate and Clinton campaign bundler Haim Saban.

Now whats personal and whats official. That depends on how Clinton was acting in those meetings - as Hillary Clinton or as Secretary of State. Because the events were logged in her daily log as official meetings it was done as Secretary of State. The Calendar was then edited to remove the names of who she met with, which is once again a violation of the records law.

The removal of Blumenthal directly contradicts Clintons testimony to Congress where she was grilled about Blumenthal and his role.

Aides are not going to edit government records to remove identifying information of individuals / groups she met with, especially when they are aides to a Cabinet Secretary and 4th in line to the Presidency, all on their own.

Hence the conspiracy listing in the list of laws she has violated.

Clinton's State Dept. calendar missing scores of entries

you up to speed now?

a reply to: Gryphon66

and like I have been saying you do not understand the law. What part of only an archivist can delete / edit / change / remove official government documents are you not understanding?

Clinton did not have the authority, nor did any of her aides, to destroy any records, duplicates or not.

A journalist is not a legal expert as the federal records law was violated. Its like your "expert" who doesn't understand gross negligence and intent.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes, I've read your statements that I don't' understand the law. That's your opinion, which has no basis.

I quoted the source BACK TO YOU that you tried to cite to prove a point (provide evidence) which demonstrates that no laws were broken, and still you can't accept that you're mistaken. The point of evidence is the "journalists" account. You want to credit and discredit your witness at the same time?

You must have made many defense attorneys very happy, LOL.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Which is why I pointed out the journalist, like your expert and gross negligence, are wrong.

No its not an opinion that you dont understand the law. Your arguments make that a fact actually by ignoring the law and what it says. For example how federal records are handled and who can destroy / edit / change them.

Ignoring facts and the law does not mean they don't apply or exist, contrary to Clinton's arguments.

Now you tell me why you think the laws dont apply to the actions in this thread by clinton and her aides up to and including the no law was violated.

a reply to: Xcathdra

In rough order of your spamming, page scrolling cut-and-paste?

So now you want to bring in more superfluous claims with no evidence? I "derail threads" with circular arguments, that you can't point out but only declare. /shrug

No, I didn't "attack you" I don't know who "you are." How absurd. You claim knowledge and understanding of criminal proceedings and evidentiary reasoning that you OBVIOUSLY do not possess and the evidence FOR THAT is your own post.

Move the goal post??? My god, YOU are the one that brought up the 75 supposedly deleted schedule entries, not me!

LOL ... so now you know that "burn bag" was not just a turn of phrase but is part and parcel of actual government procedures. Go to the simplistic link I provided you and look at the "burn bag" between Biden and Obama. It's COMMON PRACTICE in the protection of Federal records and information.

And again, you're not providing any evidence of the "scrubbed" entries ... because you don't have ANY.

And now you're refreshing your AP witness again. Have you forgotten that you already discredited that witness "counselor"??? LOL. The article states clearly that no Federal law was broken. You've done nothing to demonstrate anything contradictory to that.

You seem to think that when you quote the law, and then say "see, Clinton broke the law" that you've done something. You haven't. You have to SHOW HOW SHE BROKE THE LAW WITH EVIDENCE.

I've been "up to speed" and your snide incompetence on display here amply proves that point.

You've been called on your fallacious "I am the authority" BS. You make too many simplistic mistakes.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

Which is why I pointed out the journalist, like your expert and gross negligence, are wrong.

No its not an opinion that you dont understand the law. Your arguments make that a fact actually by ignoring the law and what it says. For example how federal records are handled and who can destroy / edit / change them.

Ignoring facts and the law does not mean they don't apply or exist, contrary to Clinton's arguments.

Now you tell me why you think the laws dont apply to the actions in this thread by clinton and her aides up to and including the no law was violated.

So the journalist is wrong, except when you need them to be right? LOL

I'm bored with your repetitive baseless arguments and pointless insults. Your posts have been shown to be empty of actual evidence again, your patter:

1. Quote a long section of law to seem well-informed.

2. Make a string of statements about evidence that you don't present.

3. Draw conclusions from your statements that simply don't follow and would get you laughed out of a first-year budget law school classroom.

4. Argue that anyone that points out your fallacious, fragile reasoning is partisan or merely opinionated, while you continue to spout your own partisan opinions.

/yawn Enjoy your continued diatribe.

So you are going to use the circular argument derailment technique while not bothering to support your argument - Check.

As I said if you have nothing to add don't post as you have consistently derailed threads with this technique.

It's sad and very Clintonesque.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
So you are going to use the circular argument derailment technique while not bothering to support your argument - Check.

As I said if you have nothing to add don't post as you have consistently derailed threads with this technique.

It's sad and very Clintonesque.

You chimed in and made claims regarding a line of commentary between myself and another poster. I used that posters own evidence to prove that the stated issue was a non-issue, that they had to admit that there were no Federal laws broken.

You do what you do, and what I've shown you do ... you offer a long quote of legal code, you make statements (that do not have any actual evidence but are to use the correct term mere conjecture) about facts in relation to your own interpretation of that code ... and then want to act as if you've done something.

Talk about circular reasoning ... your premise is that Clinton is guilty, not that you want to examine evidence in light of the law. And, surprise, you always "prove" that Clinton is guilty, not on the basis of actual evidence, but merely on your statements about evidence, i.e. CONJECTURE.

Those that are not simple adherents to your way of "thinking" see what your parochial tactics are now. But, make yourself feel better and insult me again, while whining that you're being insulted. LOL.

Like I said ... a defense attorney's DREAM.

originally posted by: Sillyolme


Mole hill meet mountain. A height you will never attain.


Hail to the Chief. Madam President.

HILLARY 2016

Yea!!! Long live the Queen!!! I can't wait to end sexism by voting Hillary!!! She'll make America great again. Oh boy. I'm excited to help elect our first female president AND get Bill back in the WH!!! Americas first man!!! Damn. So much to be excited about with Hillary!!!
Hillarycare!!! Corruption out of politics!!! Ending the 2nd Amendment!!! Putting Liberal judges on the SCOTUS!!! I say we do away with term limits so she can reign supreme for life!!! Don't think of it as a dictatorship, more like, doing what's best for the American people since she will make the best decisions for all of us.