OlDawg

Wouldn't matter. Just like much of the rest, all that's there is innuendo and smear. I don't see anything coming close to proof of guilt of something. From their own political flyer (near the bottom, of course): Wexner hired Epstein to manage his personal finances in the 1980s. Wexner cut ties with Epstein following Epstein’s 2007 Florida indictment.

What I keep saying is, there’s a big difference in someone being named, someone even documented as being there, and being able to prove a criminal case without a doubt when it would probably revert to a circumstantial he said/she said against folks who have the ability to hire the best lawyers on the planet—if you could even get them to trial. There’s no way you’re getting the foreign actors here to stand trial. That’s why I keep saying shame and ostracism are probably what we’ll get.

It’s entirely probable that’s why they’re logging. But, the reason doesn’t really matter. ALL SCIF activity is tracked and logged. That’s the nature of a SCIF. As the Head of the Dept. owning the information, she would have access.

That I can’t say. All I can say is everything done in a SCIF is tracked and recorded. This is done for security purposes. I didn’t see the interview y’all say Bondi bombed out on other than snippets here. I DID see the news article with the photo of the notes on Jayapal. They weren’t anything special, and would be typical tracking. I can understand why Bondi would have notes on what everyone viewed. I wouldn’t necessarily jump to a malicious conclusion. She may have merely wanted to be prepared, since she knew it was going to be a ‘gotcha’ meeting. How many meetings like that have you seen where the person being grilled couldn’t give an answer because they were caught unaware of what they may be asked? (They were set up for the visuals & press.) Like I say, I doubt it was nefarious. She knows her job is on the line and wanted to be prepared. But, that’s just my take.

Any number of Intelligence officials. But, it’s typically monitored by 2 guards & what used to be called an OMR supervisor. Not sure what they’re called now. Those able to see the data being viewed depend on what the data is. Different monitors and approvals for different departments. I’d think DOJ docs would be on the lower security spectrum end. Probably remotely monitored by FBI for homeland security stuff that doesn’t involve out of state actors or defense. If documents aren’t redacted that involve foreign assets, or foreign ‘persons of importance’, CIA will step in. Shouldn’t be any DoD issues. EDIT ADD: The Administration should have made this clear to all before they were granted access. If they didn’t, that’s a failure of communication of protocol on their part. Many of these Congress people have probably never been in a SCIF before, or had access to classified material. SCIF’s are typically used for intelligence or defense issues.

This isn’t news. Any and all activity in a SCIF is documented and tracked. Always has been. This is just another big hubbub about standard protocol that—if not aware of said protocols—you’d find concerning. Just about every breath taken, and every temperature variation is tracked in a SCIF. The monitoring personnel can tell if you passed gas & when. Just info for all using your post to tag onto.

I’m sorry you’re disgusted. Many of us feel the same. But, I warned you that you weren’t going to get the satisfaction you crave. There was never any way that a sizeable number of perps (foreign nationals) were going to face any kind of criminal charges in U.S. courts, or elsewhere. There won’t be any charges against Americans either after all of this theater. Shaming and ostracizing is the best you’ll get. Maybe some of them will decide to take things into their own hands. Who knows? Just keep your eye on the ball. There are only 3 key things we should wish from our government. National Security from foreign adversaries to protect our way of life. Freedom from government intrusion into our personal liberties. Manage our money wisely and frugally. Any other campaign promise is just bunk. Look for candidates that promise those basic things. They’re hard enough.

Have for decades. No change here. Why do you think I want limited government? Every time I hear someone say they want the government to do something, I cringe. Remember Reagan’s Nine Scariest Words.

Gary Johnson got 4.5 million votes (3.3%) in 2016, even though he wasn't given security information or even a chance to debate. He wasn't perfect by any means, and I didn't agree with some of the Libertarian Party platform at the time. I still don't. But, I voted for him because I felt he was a better fit for my personal priorities than Clinton (I was an ABC--Anyone But Clinton--voter because of the Benghazi similarity) or Trump. Of course, I also supported Ron Paul and Ross Perot. I had high hopes for Mitt Romney. He was caught on a hot mike telling the truth, and got burned. He still--IMHO--would have been an excellent POTUS. The current primary system is giving us horrible candidates.

I can't say I blame you. I spent many years doing many things for this government of ours. It left me hanging out on my own on more than one occasion. I chose not to vote. You bringing up Benghazi hit close to home for me for a somewhat similar situation in the 80's. There was plenty of denial then as well. Now, I champion personal liberty and fiscal sanity. I'm not receiving either, and neither is anyone else. Regardless of Party. But, I can still hope. Maybe, there's still a chance we can get our government back to what was intended.

I'm comparing campaign promises. Can the redaction be proven to be a willful crime? I'm not disagreeing with your anger, nor am I condoning the behavior.

Sorry. I don’t see any EVIDENCE OF PEDOPHILIA in Massie’s questioning here… Ineptness. Sure. Cover-up? Not proven yet. Pretty high bar to convict someone for this crime, and most of what I’ve seen and read involves some doubt. This isn’t a civil case. There can be NO REASONABLE DOUBT. Seems to me this is more of a shaming to hope people are ostracized by their peers and the public type situation until/unless I see a lot more. By the time this is all said and done, any criminal case that could have been prosecuted will be corrupted by the coverage. I’m a little surprised someone as intelligent as you appear would partially condition your vote on the campaign promise of the release of information that’s almost two decades old when so much else was at stake. It’s almost like voting for Trump because he promised to release info on UFO’s. No offense meant.

I can understand someone saying the Feds shouldn't be requiring anything to be able to vote. I can understand them saying it should be left up to each State. That--to me--is a valid argument. The argument of requiring an ID to vote is a hardship has been disproven over and over through the years via voter turnout. The Parties have modified their voter turnout operations to compensate. They educate their voters and make sure they have what they need to vote.

I can’t count on both hands how many times I’ve been at a polling location waiting in line, seen a bus pull up and many folks who were down on their luck exit, get their paperwork to vote from the driver or their helper, and say they’ll get fed after they get done voting. I’m not sure who they were voting for…(/sarcasm)

Voter participation has increased since 2000 regardless of ID requirements. The argument that requiring an ID to vote is restrictive is bogus. [Hidden Content]