• State Department Now Just Making It Up to Explain Away Clinton’s Excesses

    March 27, 2015

    Tags: , , ,
    Posted in: Embassy/State


    State Department spokesdrone Jen Psaki is now just straight out making things up to explain away the questions surrounding Clinton and her email, and the State Department’s complicity.

    Her “misstatements” can now be debunked with a click of a mouse, which we will do in a moment.

    The devil is in the details on these things, as no one expects to find a notarized document that reads “Yes, I did it all to hide embarrassing stuff from the Freedom of Information Act because dammit it is my turn to be president, signed, Hillary”).

    So let’s drill down.

    The OF-109 Form

    Outgoing State Department personnel are required to sign a statement called an OF-109. I signed one when I retired from the State Department.

    Though the possibility exists some folks get out the door without signing for whatever reason, mostly negligence, I can find no stated exceptions to having to sign. The document is straightforward; read it here. Basically it says you turned over “all [classified and] unclassified documents and papers relating to the official business of the Government acquired by me while in the employ of the Department or USIA.” The rest has to do with acknowledging you understand disclosure laws relating to those documents.

    Clinton, somewhat infamously, never signed an OF-109. Had she done so, she would have committed perjury, at the minimum, because as we now know she did not turn over her emails upon exiting the job. She did not do what every other outgoing State Department person is required to do. Clinton has a large staff, and no doubt had the attention of State’s HR people, so it seems there was near zero chance her not signing was some mere oversight.

    What Jen Psaki Said

    But here’s what Jen Psaki said instead of all that:

    The State Department spokesperson also explained why Clinton would not have signed the OF-109 separation statement. Psaki said that former secretaries of state “want to remain accessible” to future secretaries and presidents, which is why they maintain their security clearance. Psaki added that former secretaries may also want access to their files for future books.

    See, none of that is true. Signing the OF-109 has nothing at all to do with retaining one’s security clearance. That is a fully separate, independent process. Signing the OF-109 has nothing at all to do with remaining accessible to future secretaries and presidents. Signing the OF-109 has nothing to do with accessing files for future books. As a private citizen, Clinton has no more special access to State Department files than you do.

    It was all a lie. Psaki is the spokesperson. She has been asked about this matter numerous times, and has the full resources of the State Department behind her to research an answer. There is near zero chance she was uninformed. She just lied.

    But It’s Just Some Form

    One true thing Psaki did say was “that there has long been a responsibility placed on the outgoing employee to account for his or her emails.” Indeed. That accountability is embedded in the OF-109 form; that’s where the outgoing employee certifies she has done what she is required to do.

    Of course signing or not signing the form does not change the underlying law and regulation requiring outgoing personnel to turn over their stuff, so there is also that independent of the form itself.

    In rebuttal you will no doubt hear someone say “Yeah, yeah, it’s just another government form, so let’s focus on the important stuff.” This is the important stuff. Judging character, honesty and intent requires understanding the details.

    BONUS: Sounds like somebody is leaning forward hoping for that sweet, sweet White House spokesperson job in 2016. Also, an unexplored side of all this is the complicity of the State Department in Clinton’s email “issues.” State allowed her to operate outside its rules and regulations, perhaps outside the law, for four years.

    Related Articles:

    Copyright © 2020. All rights reserved. The views expressed here are solely those of the author(s) in their private capacity.

  • Recent Comments

    • John Poole said...


      Hillary has never seen herself as an “employee”. Others work for her-she works for no one except herself. She is not obligated to “sign out” of any position in her climb to the POTUS. Even there she’ll see herself as being served not “serving”. She’ll make an impressive monarch which America has lusted for since its founding.

      03/27/15 12:14 PM | Comment Link

    • John Poole said...


      Hillary’s supporters will not hold her accountable for any character “lapses”. Why not? Because they do not hold themselves accountable for moral lapses. They give her the same breaks they
      feel they also deserve.

      03/27/15 12:19 PM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      BONUS: Sounds like somebody is leaning forward hoping for that sweet, sweet White House spokesperson job in 2016.

      Is she a Republican?

      03/27/15 12:23 PM | Comment Link

    • wemeantwell said...


      She’ll be anything you want her to be, for as long as you can afford, sailor…

      03/27/15 12:35 PM | Comment Link

    • John Poole said...


      Bauer- not so fast! Of course we still don’t know if Hag Hillary will actually run. If she does she may not get her partie’s blessing. Maybe she’ll run as an independent?
      Headquarters where? The Isle of Lesbos of course.

      03/27/15 1:27 PM | Comment Link

    • Stark Naked said...


      Silly Peter! Rules (and forms) are for the little people…

      03/27/15 1:33 PM | Comment Link

    • bloodypitchfork said...


      quote”Also, an unexplored side of all this is the complicity of the State Department in Clinton’s email “issues.” State allowed her to operate outside its rules and regulations, perhaps outside the law, for four years.”unquote

      ummm, wait…wait.. what is this “State” you speak of that “allowed” her ? As if it is some sort of “entity” that “allowed her to operate outside its rules and regulations”. Given Clinton was “Secretary” of State..what other “power” within State has the authority to FORCE her to do a godddammed thing??? Seems to me, that’s like saying the USG “allowed” Obummer to operate outside the fucking Constitution! So..what is this “State” you refer to? It also seems to me..the only “power” that could possibly “force” Clinton to do anything..is CONGRESS, no?

      03/27/15 2:40 PM | Comment Link

    • bloodypitchfork said...


      ps..as for that lying cunt.. Jen Psak.. I hope she get’s dragged before Congress and raked over the fucking coals. Of course..she’ll just say..”what difference does it make now”. Meanwhile, her stench will permeate State for decades.

      03/27/15 2:44 PM | Comment Link

    • bloodypitchfork said...


      Meanwhile, haven’t heard ONE WORD about Kerry’s email.

      03/27/15 3:08 PM | Comment Link

    • Helen Marshall said...


      Not only State, but the NSC, and any other government agency with which she corresponded for four years – no one EVER wondered why emails from her were on a private account? And in all that time she never ever referred to anything of a classified nature? If so, she wasn’t doing her job. Who was?

      03/27/15 3:37 PM | Comment Link

    • John Poole said...


      Hillary may have indeed signed the OF-109 but kept the form in her possession. If she becomes POTUS it might appear at State in some basement file cabinet towards the end of her term (s) proving she did indeed play by the rules (sort of).

      03/27/15 3:55 PM | Comment Link

    • Stark Naked said...


      Or maybe they’ll discover her signed form on a coffee table in the White House or beside the dead body of some lackey on a park bench? Hey! It’s been done before…

      03/27/15 7:06 PM | Comment Link

    • Stark Naked said...


      That’s right Ms. Marshall. The whole time Hillary was Secretary, nobody noticed that she wasn’t using a State email address. Absolutely nobody. Nada, zilch, zero! (wink, wink)

      03/27/15 7:11 PM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      Off topic: Peter, after you wrote that article on Google-paranoia researching Jihadi trips, it was a good thing you listed your address in the East Village, right?’


      03/27/15 7:33 PM | Comment Link

    • wemeantwell said...


      I’m renting a room with the Clinton’s in upstate New York. I have to share the damn space with their email server, noisy as hell.

      03/27/15 7:51 PM | Comment Link

    • bloodypitchfork said...


      “I’m renting a room with the Clinton’s in upstate New York. I have to share the damn space with their email server, noisy as hell.”

      Bwahahahaha!! Careful the NSA’s TOA div doesn’t sneak in and accidentally plug a new USB-C in your ass while trying to tap her server.

      03/27/15 8:35 PM | Comment Link

    • bloodypitchfork said...


      Meanwhile, the uncontrollable(and I DO mean UNCONTROLLABLE) surveillance state train continues rolling on down the track gaining speed till such time as it can’t keep it’s wheels on the track. But as it does, I can’t help researching where and when along the track it took on various cargo that overloaded it’s capacity to carry it’s load. In that light, today, I finally discovered why the Snowden’s revelations were such a shock. In essence..we WEREN’T PAYING ATTENTION. In reality, there were so many clues even a cave man would have caught on. And that my friends is the reality. WE DIDN’T PAY ATTENTION, which is EXACTLY what these scumbag IC collectivists(like DNSA Mike Rogers) are counting on..TODAY.
      In reality, the fight between “intelligence” and “privacy” is and has been going on since time immortal. This is something that very few people understand. It should be taught in school. Unfortunately..THEY DON”T WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT. And that is the clue.
      However, in my unresolved search for the truth of how we got where we are today, I found some things that highlights the simple fact I alluded to above. In reality, many many people knew that since the National Security Act was passed into law, the Surveillance State was growing at an exponential rate. In fact, here is a fact that even few people in Congress understand to this day.

      When the National Security Act was passed, in effect, the NSA was created so secretly, even it’s name was given a classified code.

      Cue the Sub-Committee on Constitutional Rights 1975. Prior to the Church committee and the most important hearings of the time, the Pike Committee, the surveillance state was already alarming certain Congress members, as the CIA, NSA surveillance and computer technology of the time was already advancing into heretofore unbelievable realms of Orwellian concoctions. In fact, if you read the link below, compared to today, it’s hard to imagine how deep the IC cesspool may have evolved.

      However, in respect to where I am posting this, here is the link, for whatever it is worth to anyone who is interested. But I will post the Preface in hopes it will intice you to read the entire transcript. Lord help us.




      In early 1975, soon after I became Chairman of the Senate’s Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, I asked the Subcommittee staff to initiate a long-term, comprehensive investigation of the technological aspects of surveillance.

      I was concerned about this issue for a number of reasons. First as a Representative and then as a Senator from California, a State known
      for the number and quality of its high technology centers, I had been exposed for over ten years to the substantial social benefits that derive
      from our national commitment to innovative technology.

      However, as Chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Science and Technology and as a member of the Joint Atomic Energy Committee, I was also aware that high technology, if sequestered beyond the
      reach of evaluation and criticism, tends to develop its own imperatives, some of them potentially damaging to the larger social good, and that “science policy” had gradually disintegrated, becoming an empty slogan, a rhetorical device evoking positive responses but contributing little to the shape of difficult decisions that will profoundly
      affect the lives of future generations.

      My growing sense of unease focused sharply when, as the successor to Chairman Sam Ervin. I assumed major responsibilities for protecting the privacy of individual American citizens. Like many conscientious readers of newspapers and magazines, I had become alarmed about the undeniable and frightening proliferation of technological means to invade a person’s privacy, but now I had the duty to act affirmatively.

      In commissioning a study of surveillance technology, I reasoned as follows : If knowledge is power, then certainly the secret and unlimited
      acquisition of the most detailed knowledge about the most intimate aspects of a person’s thoughts and actions conveys extraordinary power
      over that person’s life and reputation to the snooper who possesses the highly personal information. And by vastly expanding the range and power of the snooper’s eyes, ears and brains, the new technology facilitates and magnifies the acquisition and use of such information.
      Moreover, as long as surveillance technology remains unregulated and
      continues to grow at an accelerating rate, the free and enriching exercise of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights will inevitably be chilled to the point of immobility by the general awareness that Big Brother commands the tools of omniscience.

      The Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights has held the first three days of projected series of hearings on the topic of surveillance tech-
      nology. In one sense the report that follows is a status report : it shows what we have learned about the subject to date, drawing upon our own
      hearings and investigations and upon work conducted in other forums.
      But in another sense this report goes beyond other efforts in the same genre because it represents a first attempt to organize an immense
      amount of data in a comprehensive and usable format and to provide a Framework for future analyses and, ultimately, for the creation of institutional mechanisms that will diminish the threats posed by surveillance technology. “unquote

      JOHN V. TUNNEY, California, Chairman 1975

      Read the report. You will never be the same.

      03/27/15 9:46 PM | Comment Link

    • Sokollu said...


      Wonder if Clinton’s close associates such as Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and Phillip Reines, also failed to sign the OF-109?

      03/27/15 9:47 PM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      “I’m renting a room with the Clinton’s in upstate New York. I have to share the damn space with their email server, noisy as hell.”

      How can you hear it over Hillary screaming at Bill?

      03/27/15 9:56 PM | Comment Link

    • bloodypitchfork said...


      goddamnit..I’m sorry. This is what happens when you stop drinking. Fuck it..

      bartender.. make me a drink. Preferably one made with a combination of absinth and Manistee forest mushrooms, with a Michigan cult beer chaser. I mean..which is worse. Facing your own failure to confront your pathetic lack of youthful interest into the very enemy of your humanity,..or getting shitfaced drunk?

      03/27/15 10:12 PM | Comment Link

    • bloodypitchfork said...


      I’m sorry, but I can’t help but try to get you to understand where we are really at. Fuck Hillary’s emails. Unless you can find a connection to undermine her presidential candidacy ..who the fuck cares. The REAL carrier of personal understanding resides in the historical context to which SHE has conspired. Hence..more work..


      03/27/15 10:33 PM | Comment Link

    • bloodypitchfork said...


      03/28/15 1:04 AM | Comment Link

    • John Poole said...


      Pitch. I was at a party tonight and one of the guests asked me if I had an issue with a woman as president. I knew exactly where she was coming from. I responded, “Of course not but I do not consider Hillary Clinton a trustworthy woman”. I then realized that Hag Hillary stood in for tens of millions of arrested development females who were unhappy in their lives and marriages. They looked to Hillary’s ascension to the top position in male affairs as a balm for their pathetically compromised lives.

      03/28/15 2:35 AM | Comment Link

    • Rich Bauer said...


      Why doesn’t Obama force his farcical Department of “Justice” to claim Hillary’s emails are all STATE SECRETS? He apparently has no problem using it to protect these clowns:


      Gee, maybe the Obama folks really do want Hillary to lose.

      03/28/15 11:46 AM | Comment Link

    • bloodypitchfork said...


      From Rich’s link:

      quote”This group of neocon extremists was literally just immunized by a federal court from the rule of law. That was based on the claim — advocated by the Obama DOJ and accepted by Judge Ramos — that subjecting them to litigation for their actions would risk disclosure of vital “state secrets.” The court’s ruling was based on assertions made through completely secret proceedings between the court and the U.S. government, with everyone else — including the lawyers for the parties — kept in the dark.”unquote

      Living proof the “rule of law” is a fucking myth.

      Ya know Rich, if this case doesn’t break the myth wide open..nothing will. Although, this one may come in to substantiate my hypothesis…


      As I commented.. ummm no, it embodies the criminal idiocy of those schmucks who sit behind the bench. Furthermore, if this happened to one of the judges family.. they’d be screaming bloody fucking murder!!

      03/28/15 4:58 PM | Comment Link

    • Bruce said...


      SD (State of Duplicity) is now innate. If Billiary needed material for their autohagiography she’d be missing the other half of the memory her concussion compounded; and like Barry-0, she’d Have NOTHING!
      (Of course, It ALL remains retrievable over at NSA!)
      Bogus: Gen PNACi would be duplicative of the terminally disingenuous liar, Earnest Josh in distaff Clinton third and/or fourth terms(s)!

      03/29/15 4:41 PM | Comment Link

    Leave A Comment

    Mail (will not be published) (required)