Sunday, April 26, 2015

The state of "evidence" in 2003 and 2015

"Sixteen Words" controversy in 2003 State of the Union
According to The Washington Post, when occupying troops found no evidence of a current nuclear program, the statement and how it came to be in the speech became a focus for critics in Washington and foreign capitals to press the case that the White House manipulated facts to take the United States to war. The Post reported, "Dozens of interviews with current and former intelligence officials and policymakers in the United States, Britain, France and Italy show that the Bush administration disregarded key information available at the time showing that the Iraq-Niger claim was highly questionable."
Moving along to 2015:  'Clinton Cash' author says no "direct evidence" of wrongdoing
The most significant of the allegations [of quid pro quo] center on a Russian company that was approved by the State Department to purchase a Canadian uranium company, giving Russia [Putin] a sizable stake in the world’s uranium market, after a $2.3 million donation to the Clinton Foundation. But Stephanopoulos pointed out that the State Department was one of nine agencies that signed off on the deal, and that “there’s no evidence at all that Hillary Clinton got directly involved at all in this decision.” (A smiliar argument was made by Clinton surrogate Lanny Davis over on Fox News Sunday.)

“There were nine different agencies who approved it,” Stephanopoulos said. “Doesn’t that suggest that that was because there was no national security concern, not because of some nefarious influence by Hillary Clinton?”

“We don’t have direct evidence,” Schweizer said. “But it warrants further investigation because, again, this is part of the broader pattern. You either have to come to the conclusion that these are all coincidences, or something else is afoot.”
So, if I have this right, the finding of no evidence in 2003, was good enough to convict the Bush administration of manipulation of facts to take the country to war. But in 2015, no "direct evidence" is not good enough to follow the trail of millions of dollars benefiting (putting it charitably) lining the Clinton pockets?

Not to mention the possible damage to our national security... I don't know, maybe I'm missing something.

And another thing... if Dick Chaney could manipulate "different agencies" to include something on a speech, you are telling me Hillary could not manipulate "different agencies" to approve something she wanted, something that could be very lucrative?

7 comments:

chickelit said...

"No direct evidence" when the relevant emails could easily have been destroyed.

There's also "no direct evidence" that Hillary thought Benghazi was anything but a reaction to rogue filmmaker.

But Hillary champions girls while leaving men to die. Because that's the kind of person she is. I wonder if it's a some twisted payback to Bill.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

Stephanopoplis is playing the role of Clinton campaign chair.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

The top 1% in the political class get rich (along with their cronies) while the middle class and poor are squeezed.

Stephanpolis will not get to the bottom of it.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

If the GOP had a drop of this type of corruption going on, "reporters" would be all over it.

No direct evidence with a Clinton (no digging required! no journalism required) and it will stay that way as long and the blue media are in charge.

Joe Biden, America's Putin said...

from Powerline:

Madam Hillary wiped her homebrew email server’s hard drive to dispose of unwanted messages deriving from her tenure as Secretary of State. It is a perfect metaphor for the return of the Clinton era. Everybody must get his hard drive wiped.

We must have our religious hard drives wiped to clear space for the sacrament of abortion according to the apostle Hillary.

We must have our ethical hard drives wiped to indulge the Clintons’ epic corruption.

We must have our humor hard drives wiped to keep from laughing at the higher motives in which the Clinton corruption comes packaged.

We must have our cranial hard drives wiped so that we can hear out Madam Hillary as she holds herself out as a class warrior and, oh, yes, as she moralizes on sexual assault at the Women in the World Summit in New York on Thursday...
Paula Jones was unavailable for comment.

bagoh20 said...

Everybody including the cops and D.A.s know specific Mafia kingpins are guilty of all manor of things, including murder, but they rarely have the evidence to prove it. That just indicates a little sophistication on the part of the criminals. Lack of evidence certainly is not proof of guilt, but neither is it exonerating when you are talking about certain people where power coincides with opportunity and motive. Investigation is the way to exonerate, and exoneration should be necessary to vote for Hillary Clinton. She is the one who chose to skirt transparency and take control of the evidence, and to then destroy much of it. Did she delete the exonerating stuff? How unfortunate.

edutcher said...

The Left is one big crime family, bound by the omerta.

At least La Cosa Nostra played by a specific set of rules. The Lefties have no such sense of honor.