The reason this went nowhere is because the charges fell apart on further investigation.
The ambassador was he was cleared and got an apology from the State Department.
These initial news reports about the allegations were followed up by and Inspector's General report. The initial allegations turned out to be office gossip leaked by diplomatic security officer who did not work the case and was not familiar with the details. She was claiming a cover up, but the IG found that the allegations were garbage and they quickly dismissed them.
Calling bullshit on this Are_we_sure troll yet again
The initial allegations turned out to be office gossip leaked by diplomatic security officer who did not work the case and was not familiar with the details. She was claiming a cover up, but the IG found that the allegations were garbage and they quickly dismissed them.
This guy just regurgitates the official IG coverup statement ("*nothing to see here folks . . . move along . . . *")
So, here's what actually happened:
"after only two days of preliminary inquiry, the agent was directed to stop any further investigation into the matter, because of a decision by senior Department officials to treat the matter as a “management issue.”
So the security team did not determine the falsity of the charges in 2 days.
Here's what the IOG's report actually said:
"before the preliminary inquiry was halted, only one of multiple potential witnesses on the embassy’s security staff had been interviewed. Additionally, DS never interviewed the Ambassador and did not follow its usual investigative protocol of assigning an investigative case number to the matter or opening and keeping investigative case files".
In other words, the agent had only managed to interview one person before he got yanked out, and someone prevailed upon the security team to not record a case number, and to get rid of the files.
The security didn't prove squat, either about Howard Gutman's innocence or his guilt. Their investigation got pulled out from under them before the investigator could get much of anything done.
Senior State Department staff intervened, they pulled the investigating agent out of Belgium, and they changed the issue from an investigation to a 'management issue,' where everything could be handled internally at senior levels.
See how the sleight-of-hand works, readers?
The Howard Gutman matter did get out of the security team and into the highest levels of the Secretary's office. Big time.
Senior department officials got involved in pulling the investigator out Belgium and doing the paperwork to convert the investigation into a 'management issue' to be handled by senior managers.
In fact, it went so high that it was Under Secretary of State for Management, Patrick Kennedy, who initiated the intervention.
The Under Secretary of State for Management sits on the President's Management Council, and reports to Counselor to the Secretary of State Cheryl Mills at that time) who reports directly to the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton at that time.)
When Howard Gutman was flown over to Washington to discuss the charges,** it was Patrick Kennedy and Cheryl Mills who interviewed him personally.**
This shit was being handled at the highest levels of the State Department.
And if anyone actually believe that Cheryl Mills didn't report the Gutman affair in detail to Hillary Clinton, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you . . .
If interested readers would like to read the report issued by the Inspector General's office, you can get it here:
In that report you will find no statement that "the charges of interference were mainly due to office gossip, where the people NOT involved in the particular investigation made the charges"
So, what's the deal with this Are_we_sure person?
It doesn't seem like a bot could do such focused trolling? But how does a real flesh & blood person get so desperately pathetic as to post such transparently ridiculous BS?
A. Transparently ridiculous BS is what this board is all about. Read the front page on any day. John Podesta's in custody, have you heard?
B. If you're calling me a bot, you don't know what a bot is.
B. You're citing known bullshit artist William Craddick and you claim to be interested in the truth? The same guy who created the bullshit connection between Clinton and Laura Silsby? The claim that I demolished here.. He made this easily disprovable claim.
Hillary has a LONG history of interest in Ms. Silsby. Wikileak emails dating back till at least 2001 have been found in her archives discussing Laura's NGO.
It's complete and total bullshit. The document he cites was NOT an email and it was clearly written after the Haitian earthquake in 2010. It was so obvious that it was written in 2010, he must be lying. There's simply no room for an honest mistake here. The NGO didn't even exist in 2001.
As for this silly cover up claim, the OIG report was basically an exoneration of the ambassador. I love how you quote from the OIG report but you leave out the fact that
The allegations were not credible and not substantiated.
Here's the language from before you quote, (which begins in the middle of a sentence.)
**OIG found that, based on the limited evidence collected by DS, the suspected misconduct by the Ambassador was not substantiated. **
DS management told OIG, in 2013, that the preliminary inquiry was appropriately halted because no further investigation was possible.
OIG concluded, however, that additional evidence, confirming or refuting the suspected misconduct,could have been collected. For example.......
which leads directly to part you quote. OIG did not say there was any coverup. They said there were steps they could take minimize appearance of favoritism. OIG could have REINVESTIGATED THIS CASE, they have that option. They did not. Why? The evidence didn't support it. State basically said we found there was nothing to this immediately upon investigation.** And OIG agreed the charges were unsubstatiated,** but said they could have investigated more.
For those interested, here's the ambassador's story and can see how flimsy the charge is. He used to walk through the park next to his office and talk to people. Ambassadors in Belgium did not at that time require a security detail (so he did not ditch his security) The charge was he was seen talking to drug dealers or prostitutes. This then became he ditched his security team to solicit prostitutes, this then became underage prostitutes. (Notice how this is never mentioned whatsoever in the OIG report. The Belgian press reported there actually had been no reports of illegal activity in that park and another quote Belgian intelligence who had him under surveillance and never witnessed any questionable.
The OIG report is basically a clearance and it makes two recommendations, they are pretty anondyne.
The Department should take steps (as previously recommended in OIG’s report on the 2012
inspection (ISP-I-13-18)), to enhance the integrity of DS’s internal investigations process by implementing safeguards to prevent the
appearance of, or actual, undue influence and favoritism by Department officials.
The Department should clarify and revise the Foreign Affairs Manual and should promulgate and implement additional protocols and procedures,
in order to ensure that allegations of misconduct concerning Chiefs of Mission and other senior Department officials are handled fairly, consistently,
and independently.
view the rest of the comments →
new4now ago
The Ambassador was Howard Gutman , the Belgian Ambassador
Also was Hillary's Secret Service under investigation
Singleservename ago
Thank you. Yes it was him. Funny thing is, I knew his name from other investigation threads. I'm going to take my hard drive apart looking for them.
Are_we_sure ago
The reason this went nowhere is because the charges fell apart on further investigation.
The ambassador was he was cleared and got an apology from the State Department.
These initial news reports about the allegations were followed up by and Inspector's General report. The initial allegations turned out to be office gossip leaked by diplomatic security officer who did not work the case and was not familiar with the details. She was claiming a cover up, but the IG found that the allegations were garbage and they quickly dismissed them.
ReddittRefugee ago
Calling bullshit on this Are_we_sure troll yet again
This guy just regurgitates the official IG coverup statement ("*nothing to see here folks . . . move along . . . *")
So, here's what actually happened:
"after only two days of preliminary inquiry, the agent was directed to stop any further investigation into the matter, because of a decision by senior Department officials to treat the matter as a “management issue.”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-20/watergate-style-break-covered-shocking-wave-clinton-state-department-scandals
So the security team did not determine the falsity of the charges in 2 days.
Here's what the IOG's report actually said:
"before the preliminary inquiry was halted, only one of multiple potential witnesses on the embassy’s security staff had been interviewed. Additionally, DS never interviewed the Ambassador and did not follow its usual investigative protocol of assigning an investigative case number to the matter or opening and keeping investigative case files".
In other words, the agent had only managed to interview one person before he got yanked out, and someone prevailed upon the security team to not record a case number, and to get rid of the files.
The security didn't prove squat, either about Howard Gutman's innocence or his guilt. Their investigation got pulled out from under them before the investigator could get much of anything done.
Senior State Department staff intervened, they pulled the investigating agent out of Belgium, and they changed the issue from an investigation to a 'management issue,' where everything could be handled internally at senior levels.
See how the sleight-of-hand works, readers?
The Howard Gutman matter did get out of the security team and into the highest levels of the Secretary's office. Big time.
Senior department officials got involved in pulling the investigator out Belgium and doing the paperwork to convert the investigation into a 'management issue' to be handled by senior managers.
In fact, it went so high that it was Under Secretary of State for Management, Patrick Kennedy, who initiated the intervention.
The Under Secretary of State for Management sits on the President's Management Council, and reports to Counselor to the Secretary of State Cheryl Mills at that time) who reports directly to the Secretary of State (Hillary Clinton at that time.)
When Howard Gutman was flown over to Washington to discuss the charges,** it was Patrick Kennedy and Cheryl Mills who interviewed him personally.**
This shit was being handled at the highest levels of the State Department.
And if anyone actually believe that Cheryl Mills didn't report the Gutman affair in detail to Hillary Clinton, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you . . .
If interested readers would like to read the report issued by the Inspector General's office, you can get it here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20141017160310/http:/oig.state.gov/documents/organization/233250.pdf
In that report you will find no statement that "the charges of interference were mainly due to office gossip, where the people NOT involved in the particular investigation made the charges"
So, what's the deal with this Are_we_sure person?
It doesn't seem like a bot could do such focused trolling? But how does a real flesh & blood person get so desperately pathetic as to post such transparently ridiculous BS?
And who obviously doesn't read original sources?
Whats up with that?
Are_we_sure ago
Dude,
A. Transparently ridiculous BS is what this board is all about. Read the front page on any day. John Podesta's in custody, have you heard?
B. If you're calling me a bot, you don't know what a bot is.
B. You're citing known bullshit artist William Craddick and you claim to be interested in the truth? The same guy who created the bullshit connection between Clinton and Laura Silsby? The claim that I demolished here.. He made this easily disprovable claim.
It's complete and total bullshit. The document he cites was NOT an email and it was clearly written after the Haitian earthquake in 2010. It was so obvious that it was written in 2010, he must be lying. There's simply no room for an honest mistake here. The NGO didn't even exist in 2001.
As for this silly cover up claim, the OIG report was basically an exoneration of the ambassador. I love how you quote from the OIG report but you leave out the fact that
The allegations were not credible and not substantiated.
Here's the language from before you quote, (which begins in the middle of a sentence.)
which leads directly to part you quote. OIG did not say there was any coverup. They said there were steps they could take minimize appearance of favoritism. OIG could have REINVESTIGATED THIS CASE, they have that option. They did not. Why? The evidence didn't support it. State basically said we found there was nothing to this immediately upon investigation.** And OIG agreed the charges were unsubstatiated,** but said they could have investigated more.
For those interested, here's the ambassador's story and can see how flimsy the charge is. He used to walk through the park next to his office and talk to people. Ambassadors in Belgium did not at that time require a security detail (so he did not ditch his security) The charge was he was seen talking to drug dealers or prostitutes. This then became he ditched his security team to solicit prostitutes, this then became underage prostitutes. (Notice how this is never mentioned whatsoever in the OIG report. The Belgian press reported there actually had been no reports of illegal activity in that park and another quote Belgian intelligence who had him under surveillance and never witnessed any questionable.
The OIG report is basically a clearance and it makes two recommendations, they are pretty anondyne.
carmencita ago
Paid Shill.
Are_we_sure ago
Morning, carmencita.
You are incorrect. Enjoy your weekend.
ReddittRefugee ago
Actually, I hadn't thought about that. Good possibility.