Clinton friend involved in passport breach
Oops. Things just turned serious.
[Quote:]
A State Department official in charge of the department during two of the three breaches into the passport files of Sen. Barack Obama has a direct tie to Bill and Hillary Clinton and department officials are investigating whether she furnished information to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Maura Harty was in charge of the Bureau Of Consular Affairs during the first two breaches of Obama’s passport. Former President Bill Clinton appointed her to an ambassadorship during his Presidency.
March 21st, 2008 at 22:58
Ok, just how likely is that HRC needed some passport info on Obama?
“Look Bill, he went to Idaho! We got him!”
Seriously…
March 22nd, 2008 at 15:27
SHAME ON YOU for passing on this nonsense. The headline says a Clinton friend was “involved”, and the article only says she was “in charge” of the DEPARTMENT when the breaches happened. As though someone in charge of a department is always “involved” in everything that goes on there.
Is this how your scientific skepticism works? It only works for people that you like, but not for people you don’t like?
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
March 22nd, 2008 at 16:25
Headline copied verbatim from Capitol Hill Blue. Take it up with them. Also note that the State Dept has now discovered that *all* candidates passport info has been breached. It’ll be interesting to see where it leads…
March 22nd, 2008 at 21:55
I know that the headline is verbatim, but it’s wrong. The story doesn’t support the headline, and I have taken it up with them. And I’m taking it up with you, too.
Don’t pass on crap.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
March 22nd, 2008 at 22:03
If people in *my* department screw up, I’d consider myself involved in the case - I would fire them personally, as appears to have happened here, and that sure involves me. I do not translate “involved in…” as “personally gave order to…” but it appears you do read it that way. I do not.
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:04
I’m not a fan of your excuse “it’s just a headline I copied.” Over here they become headlines on your website, and you’re implicitly supporting the message by repeating it without analysis or commentary.
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:34
Turns out, one of the three people who accessed the candidate’s files works for… wait for it… Obama foreign policy advisor, John O. Brennan, president and CEO of the Analysis Corp. Brennan’s employee was the only one of the three who was not fired, merely disciplined and, CNN’s Zain Verjee reports, the unnamed employee also accessed John McCain’s files.
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/03/passport_to_trouble.html
Move on people, there’s nothing to see….
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:35
So we could just say Clinton friend’s involved in breach committed by Obama’s friend?
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:39
I think Carolyn would say something like “The CEo of the company is an Obama advisor. But he was not the person who actually accessed the file. How unprofessional of you not to even get that basic fact right. I am furious that you would imply that the fact the employee in questions works for that company means the CEO has anything to do with it and therefore Obama would have to denounce it. MakeThemAccountable!”
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:41
[Check this out:]
March 23rd, 2008 at 11:56
Actually, I agree with the comment on the time stuff: It was an idiot who was curious, and happens to have ties.
I would say in a place like that, almost every politician can be tied to almost anything.
Can we get a bit less paranoid over the whole thing?
Or we can bring up the card: McCain’s and Hillary’s records were breached, and as a distraction they checked Obama’s records too just to show it was not them.
I vote for the curious idiot scenario.
Case closed