Jun 9, 2015 | Liberty Articles, Take Action
By Harold Pease
A year ago the Boy Scouts of America elected Robert M. Gates, past CIA director and national defense secretary, as its national president. Perhaps there has never been a more high profile national president. His honors in the scouting program are just as impressive.
Unfortunately his message this month to the Scouts’ national annual meeting in Atlanta Georgia set the BSA on fire. The Associated Press reported, “that the organization’s longstanding ban on participation by openly gay adults is no longer sustainable, and called for change in order to avert potentially destructive legal battles.” This position is not a surprise to those who know Gates. Just last year he said, that he “personally would have favored ending the ban on gay adults, but he opposed any further debate after the Scouts’ policy making body upheld the ban.” Gates, as former national defense secretary, was the father of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy allowing gays into the military services.
Many years ago I served as a lay minister and received an unusual patron for counseling, a new move-in to whom I was to have ecclesiastical jurisdiction for a time. He told me a horrifying story, the details of which I cannot repeat here, but which involved his activities as a scoutmaster to three little boys at different times and in different troops over a period of time. He told me of his sexual desire for little boys and begged me to help him avoid any service opportunity that placed him in close proximity with young men. I did as he requested. Contacting authorities confirmed what he shared, although at least twenty-five years earlier, revealing that two of the scouts, now adults, were now themselves gay and having to deal with the same lust for other little boys activated by the activities of their former scoutmaster.
He also spoke of a boy of like age in his neighborhood presently that wandered by occasionally. His eyes lit up, as you or I would salivate over the smells of a sirloin steak barbequed on the grill. He called him “fresh meat.” I warned him of the consequences of any action on his part and advised that he immediately separate himself from the boy and seek the company of another adult, preferably his wife (he was bi-sexual) or a family member. He was also advised to seek professional help for his craving appetite. He promised to follow that advice and as far as I know did, but I was stunned by the power of this appetite. Over time I counseled other gays, each having his own age preferences and not all focused on twelve and thirteen year old little boys.
President Gate’s “enlightened” suggestions met mostly with raving reviews by the establishment press with words such as equality, fairness, openness, inclusive, and progressive. I saw nothing pointing out the dangers of allowing seasoned adult male predators to prey on our vulnerable innocent little boys. Opening the Boy Scout Program, with its numerous close quarter campouts, would be heaven to scout leader predators (we used to call them perverts) such as I described above. If sodomy is against the law in every state in the union, even criminalized, why would we allow, encourage, and protect it in the Boy Scout program?
Advocates for allowing gay scout leaders into the BSA, say that this change is necessary to keep the program from going extinct. Since 70% of scout units are sponsored and funded by local churches the argument is bogus. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sponsors half of these and they are sure to pull out of the organization because of this change alone. Extinction is more likely to follow if this change happens. Christian parents will not knowingly send their young boys over night to known homosexuals. Contributions will dry up. There is no reason for Christians to be bullied into submission by gay activists.
Yet another problem, not addressed by Gates, is how do the Christian churches square the scout law, clean, and the scout oath requiring a scout to be morally straight, with their view that homosexuality is not being clean or morally straight? Most Christian churches teach the Biblical position on homosexuality, which is the opposite of being morally straight, and also is heavily condemned by God.
Opponents of what has been written in this column are certain to rebut, “But not all gays are pedophiles.” That may be so, but too many of them are and even one who targets little boys is one too many.
Finally, the gay movement has not shown itself to be open to compromise. To conciliate them two years ago the BSA changed its policy to allow boys who thought themselves gay to have membership. But this was not enough. Seemingly, the gay agenda seeks to destroy the organization instead. Why do they not instead create their own organization called “Gay Campers of America” and have any program they like and leave the BSA alone?
Gates statement upon becoming national president made a year ago was uplifting, “I believe every child deserves an opportunity to experience what Scouting offers.” I do not believe that this should include the danger of being sexually molested.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
May 18, 2015 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The California State Legislature is contemplating joining other states in proposing an Article V Constitutional Convention to change the U.S. Constitution like unto that used by the Founding Father in 1787. Under the authorship of Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, it patterns its proposal after sister states Alaska, Florida, Georgia, and New Hampshire each of whom falsely presume that they can limit a new constitutional convention to only the proposals submitted. This column is directed to state representatives in other states also under the same false assumption. Unfortunately well-meaning patriots throughout the land, in their desire to “take back their government,” are, in their ignorance of our history, risking the Constitution itself.
Article V reads, “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution.” Outside the Bill of Rights we have had 17 such changes. But what if Congress itself becomes corrupt and will not initiate change, as is the case now with the federal governments failure to be fiscally responsible? The Founding Fathers gave the people a second avenue through their states to force Congress to enact change. “Or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof.” But Congress, not the states, calls the convention, “as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.” Notice that, once called, the states have no power to limit change.
The California call for a constitutional convention limits its delegates to just two areas: “support for amendments that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, and which limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.” (This coming from a state legislature that shows the same fiscal irresponsibility and same tendency to grow its power at the expense of county and city jurisdiction, as does its federal counterpart.) Such a requirement has no force of law once the convention convenes, and if each state submits differing proposals dozens of changes are likely. The convention, already convened, will proceed as did its predecessor, the Constitutional Convention, despite their authorization to only revise the Articles of Confederation. They discarded the entire document and began anew. Fortunately the resulting Constitution is a much better document but unfortunately a precedent was established for starting anew, which WILL BE REPEATED with a new Constitutional Convention. There exists no way to prevent a run-a-way convention.
Yes, proponents of a new convention argue, that the new changes will be returned to the states for three-fourths ratification. This assumes that this requirement was not changed by the new convention. Remember, under the Article of Confederation a unanimous approval of all states was required. The Constitutional Convention changed this to just nine of the thirteen states. Since state delegations are likely to include members of Congress it might be concluded in the new convention that no good reason exists to send it back to the states for ratification. So much for California, or any other state, having any real ability to limit the outcome of a new convention. Moreover, in the last Constitutional Convention new changes were not sent back to the states individually, only the package as a whole. Support or rejection was the only two options allowed. This too will be repeated.
New Hampshire law is probably the most restrictive in making their delegates stay within parameters established by its state legislature, even criminalizing their action if they depart. A new convention, sensitive to the fate of those exceeding their instructions, could in the new document simply void any state punishment for delegates having done so.
There exists a much better way “to take back our government”—the way that already works—one amendment at a time beginning with the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment if desired. Returning to California’s two areas of needed constitutional change, actually we do not need an amendment to restore fiscal responsibility. Article I, Section 7 already does this if used. Nor do we need any new amendments “to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government,” Article I, Section 8 and Amendment 10 already do this when followed.
Anyone familiar with the Constitution knows that it is a precious document that reflects the wisdom of the ages and can handle any problems now besetting this nation. In my Contemporary Events political science class students are required to solve problems of today by the Constitution, rather than by political party, and we are successful in every instance. What we lack is not the wordage and authority to bring a wayward government back in line but those who know the Constitution well enough to defend it and use it.
Obviously getting Congress to follow what already exists is the problem. Where is the evidence that they would read, understand, or use a new document, or if we are lucky to get only a few new amendments, any better than the Constitution that under oath Congress has already pledged to defend and obey? The traditional way to use Article V allows plenty of time for debate and there exist no danger of throwing out the baby (the U.S. Constitution) with the bath water.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
May 11, 2015 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Military Operation Jade Helm 15 is billed as the largest peacetime military exercise in sixty years, although no one can remember one larger, or one involving more civilians. Wartime yes, FDR incarcerated over 110 thousand Japanese Americans in World War II. Thousands of troops including America’s greatest: the Navy Seals, the Army Rangers, the Green Berets, US. Air Force Special Operations Command, the USMC Marine Special Operations Command, and the 82nd Airborne Division will practice “realistic” mock operations in nine states mostly in the Southwest. Although the facts remain skimpy, adding to the fear, we are told that it begins July 15 and ends 60 days later, September 15, and will simulate war missions mostly in remote areas.
The U.S. Army Special Operation Command letter detailing the operation claims to have acquired approval from local officials to conduct these military exercises. The operation comes complete with staging areas; airfields, drop and landing zones so it could be scary for some not used to a military presence. Texas, Utah and from Bakersfield south in California, are labeled hostile territory (this part of California is specifically identified as an Insurgent Pocket), New Mexico is identified as leaning hostile. The rest of California and all of Nevada, and Colorado are labeled permissive with Arizona leaning friendly. The map provided in the command letter has code word operations: six in Texas, three in Arizona, two in Utah, New Mexico and Florida. No detail is revealed with respect to these special operations except that Texas is obviously the area of heaviest concentration.
A low population density with access to towns is considered essential in the operation. Their unclassified document explains why: “Operating in and around communities where anything out of the ordinary will be spotted and reported” and “ the opportunity to work with civilians to gain their trust and understanding of the issues.” Obviously Operation Jade Helm 15 will involve numerous citizens and will be noticed. We are told to expect increased aircraft at night, suspicious activities, personnel carrying weapons and some of the military personnel wearing civilian attire and driving civilian vehicles, (Unclassified/Fouo, US Army Special Operations Command, Contact Thomas Mead, JADE HELM Operations Planner/MSEL, phone 910-391-1137).
Opponents, of which there are many, view the operation as preparing the troops for coming civil unrest, as in Ferguson, Missouri or Baltimore, Maryland, or even political unrest as happened with the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas in 1993, or on the Bundy Ranch just last year when federal snipers had their rifles aimed at the Bundy’s and Bundy supporters, coming from as far away as Connecticut, who had their rifles aimed at the government snipers.
Reportedly Governor Abbott of Texas has ordered his state’s national guard to keep an eye on Operation Jade Helm 15 in his state, to which the guard responded that it would. Moreover, some veteran groups have launched what they term a “Counter Jade Helm Operation” wherein they intend to monitor and identify the movements of Jade Helm. Their motto: “Body Cams In Place! They Practice, We Practice.” The Internet will be used to disseminate the information.
Why shouldn’t Texas feel singled out, three years ago they spoke openly of succession? Why shouldn’t Utah wonder if this show of military strength has anything to do with the Sheriffs’ Rebellion in western states wherein she wrote the strongest letter to the executive branch informing them that Utah would be enforcing the Second Amendment as understood by the Founding Fathers, “even if it costs us our lives.”
The establishment press is very dismissive of all of this, labeling those who fear the government as anti-government or conspiracy nuts. The problem is, Operation Jade Helm is big, real, and not a conspiracy. Its size and scope frightens people. The military can practice what it wishes on its gigantic military bases and in much smaller groups and in a single state with half their participants in civilian clothing, the other not. It has provided no good reason why it needs nine states to do so.
If this massive show of military strength happened in the fifties when the vast majority of the population trusted what the government said to be true, it may have been acceptable. But we live in a time when most presidents have lied to the people and the trust factor by the people of their government is at an all time low. We live in a time when the government spies on its own citizens. When the NSA records every email generated by the people for permanent storage in Bluffdale, Utah, after telling us that this was preposterous—a conspiracy theory that turned out not to be theory, and when Barack Obama uses the IRS to punish his political enemies just like Richard Nixon did. Frankly, we live in a time when the government, either party, cannot be trusted. It has discredited itself.
So, should we fear Operation Jade Helm? Probably not in the sense that our civil liberties will be threatened, just yet. But there is a bigger reason for it and the government has not been forthcoming with it. Perhaps it is to get us used to such which one day may be used to round up political dissidents. You would have to be naïve not to have had this cross your mind at least once.
May 4, 2015 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D.
If you are a liberal publication or news outlet, which is all the major networks excepting Fox News, you want your followers to know that the Koch brothers, Charles and David, unduly fund Republican Party candidates and causes on the right side of the political spectrum. Liberal newspapers include almost all big city newspapers and most major national news magazines. If you are a conservative outlet you fail to mention the Koch brothers and speak only of George Soros as the big funder for most liberal outlets, which includes most everything except Fox News and most of talk radio. Neither mentions the other leaving the impression that only the other is buying elections. Moreover, neither mentions the “invisible primary,” happening now, where candidates cross and crisscross America with alms bowls in hand begging the mega-rich to buy them.
First let us consider George Soros. His money, $32 billion, is targeted for influence and political power over this nation and the world—all directed to the far left side of the political spectrum and the globalization (code for world government) of the world. Prominent among his myriad of well-funded socialist organizations are: ACORN, the Tides Foundation, Sojourners, The Quantum Fund, and Media Matters. Some of these organizations operate in other countries, as for example Open Society Institute (spends 425 million a year on socialist causes) and Friends of the Earth, designed to build support for an international network of organizations dedicated to the environment. The Center for American Progress schedules their “experts” for talk show events even developing talking points for them. The Apollo Alliance played a major role in the development of the Stimulus Bill now incorporated into law. The American Constitution Society defends far-left interpretations of the Constitution. And, MoveOn.org organizes action alerts to followers via the Internet.
Likely no other one person outside David Rockefeller, also promoting the left and world government, has as many organizations as combat ready and as highly financed, as does George Soros. He hosted fundraisers for Obama and made numerous visits to the White House. There is reason to believe that Soros has influenced the president on: The Stimulus Bill, Cap and Trade, opposition to the extension of the Bush tax cuts, and banking reform. Still, the left side of the political spectrum fails to see this as a problem, equal to, or surpassing, that of the Koch brothers who they criticize for doing the same thing.
Now for the Koch brothers, Charles and David, who built Koch Industries making it the second largest privately held corporation in American. At a recent fundraising event for the Republican Party they announced their vote for Governor Scott Walker for president, essentially taking off the table perhaps the most coveted financial support source of right of center Republican candidates. Their semi-annual summits attract the candidates, who discuss policy, and like-minded donors.
“Freedom Partners is the central hub for the Koch-backed network that includes groups like the activist-recruiting Americans for Prosperity, the millennial-targeting Generation Opportunity and the Hispanic-wooing Libre Initiative. Taken together, the Koch-endorsed groups make up a political machine that raises and spends more than almost any network in politics — including the official Republican campaign committees” (“Political machine backed by Koch brothers close to $1 billion for 2016, expected to dwarf RNC,” Associated Press, Jan. 26, 2015).
Democrats accuse Koch-backed groups of airing tens of millions of dollars in negative ads against incumbent Democratic lawmakers in 2014 and of helping the Republicans win a majority in the Senate. They also accuse them of funding the Tea Party movement—a charge without solid specific documentation.
Sometimes even enemy nations vote with money for the president of the United States. In both Bill Clinton presidential elections, Communist China made substantial contributions in the case known as Chinagate. At that time contributor Johnny Chung, for example, gave $50,000 to Hillary Clinton’s top aide while seeking VIP White House treatment saying: “I see the White House as like a subway—you have to put in coins to open the gates.” (Sam Smith, The Progressive Review, February 24, 1999). Today, the Clinton Foundation solicits contributions from foreign governments, some of whom, like Communist China (from which it took $2 million in 2013), have despicable human rights records, and like Saudi Arabia, which has atrocious women’s rights abuses.
Obviously funding elections and founding organizations pushing ideology is the game of billionaires. The candidate with the most money usually wins and the rich select the winners long before the people vote. The most important part of the presidential election, selecting the actual two candidates, is happening now. Some may argue since both sides are doing the same thing that it is, in this respect, fair. But it is not fair when either side fails to mention that they are doing the same thing, projecting instead that they are not. So the question is what billionaire buys your vote for president? One problem, however, is that since the media personnel haven’t, themselves as a group, voted less than 80% for a Democrat in the White House for the last 50 years, most Americans only hear about the Koch brothers buying elections.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution.
Apr 13, 2015 | Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
The last few months have been full of Hillary intrigue; most recently her use of her own home server to house some of our most sensitive national security secrets as Secretary of State in opposition to the Federal Records Act. Now the Clintons’ report it to have been wiped clean (perhaps yet another scandal) presumably so as to destroy any hope of proving or disproving that her server housed classified documents.
This disclosure effects other longer-term investigations as for example, the U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi headed by Rep. Trey Gowdy, investigating who was responsible for the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans by terrorists on the night of September 11, 2012, in Benghazi, Libya. Who failed to provide embassy protection when need for it had been expressed by Stevens a month before his death? As this would fall under the purview of the State Department over whom Secretary Clinton had charge, her emails are critical—but not one exists. The committees investigating have sought this information for over two years. Chairman Gowdy argues: “It strains credibility to believe that if you’re on your way to Libya to discuss Libyan policy, that there’s not a single document that’s been turned over to Congress. So there are huge gaps.”
It was Hillary who, allegedly knowing otherwise, insisted that the attack was merely a reaction to an American video negative to Islam. We now know that it was a Hillary aide, Victoria Nuland, who ordered the removal of all mentions of terrorism with respect to the attack. What makes this a scandal is the disinformation emanating from the White House and the almost total stonewalling of information sought by Congress of which an intentionally wiped-clean home server amplifies. This could be a larger scandal than Nixon’s Watergate because four Americans lost their lives because of the apparent incompetence of the then Secretary of State.
A wiped-clean server may also make it more difficult to attach her to the Clinton Foundation contributions that she was soliciting from foreign governments, some of whom, like Communist China (from which it took $2 million in 2013), have despicable human rights records, and like Saudi Arabia, which has atrocious women’s rights abuses. The latter could damage her bid for the White House with her expected campaign charge that Republicans are anti-women. Certainly Foundation money is expected to assist many causes but few doubt that a large portion will go to the Hillary presidential campaign. Many Americans may not feel good about their president being elected with foreign contributions, although both Bill Clinton elections were allegedly aided with contributions from China, referred to later as Chinagate. Contributor Johnny Chung gave $50,000 to Hillary Clinton’s top aide while seeking VIP White House treatment saying: “I see the White House as like a subway—you have to put in coins to open the gates.” (Sam Smith, The Progressive Review, February 24, 1999) Many might see such governments as buying, and banking, influence when Hillary became president.
So, three potential Hillary centered scandals are in the news at the moment. But this is not new, since Whitewater she has been involved with, and escaped from (because of legions of defenders) several others. Almost simultaneous to Whitewater, and as First Lady of Arkansas while Bill was governor, she managed to turn a $1,000 investment in cattle futures into a profit of nearly $100,000 in less than nine months. The Journal of Economics and Finance estimated that the probability of doing so without inside information, which is illegal, was 1 to 31 trillion (Anderson, Seth C, 18 (3): 357-365). She claimed that she had learned how to trade by reading the Wall Street Journal. No economist argued that this was possible. The event was termed Cattle-Futures Gate by opponents.
In some ways the so-called Filegate scandal was the most frightening. FBI files of up to 900 former Reagan and Bush appointees were sent over to White House security chief Craig Livingstone who inferred when pressed, that the directive to do so originated from the First Lady. Moreover, reportedly Deputy White House counsel William Kennedy would frequently call up the FBI and have someone’s files sent over on his request. The intent appeared to be to blackmail perspective political opponents but once known opposition to its use came quickly.
The term Chinagate originated from Clinton’s acceptance of foreign contributions to their elections more specifically those from Communist China, our ideological enemy. The Senate Judiciary Committee, the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee and the Whitewater Independent Counsel each investigated. The DOJ reported, “A pattern of events suggests a level of knowledge within the White House—including the President’s and First Lady’s offices—concerning the injection of foreign funds into the reelection effort.” In 1996 The Justice Department also investigated campaign fundraising abuses and cover-ups regarding the efforts by China to influence U.S. policies.
From Whitewater, to Cattle-Futures Gate, to Chinagate, to Filegate, to the potential Benghazi cover-up, to Clinton Foundation contributions from wayward countries to influence Hillary as Secretary of State and perhaps later as president, to the security breach of using her home server, to wiping it clean to remove evidence, the trail of corruption and deceit is stark. Unfortunately we have only identified the big ones.
Apr 13, 2015 | Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Hillary Clinton’s refusal to use government secured servers and a government email address, opting instead for her own unsecured home server as Secretary of State, is now criticized by Democrats and Republicans alike. Did she not know, or worse care, that as Secretary of State every enemy, terrorist, or even sometimes-friendly countries would attempt to hack her for the information to destroy or weaken us? Even Sony, Blue Cross, and Home Depot have been hacked. Most of what she did was extremely sensitive, even classified. Our national intelligence was potentially on public display for four years. How could she defy the Federal Records Act? Certainly this could not be out of ignorance. If classified records were found on anyone else’s home server they would go to jail.
Still, the now called “Email Scandal” is not a total shock for most over forty quite aware that the Clinton’s, Bill and Hillary, have never acted as though the rules really applied to them. The Clinton Administration was a-buzz with scandal after scandal.
Perhaps no woman in U.S. History is more loved or hated than Hillary Rodham Clinton. Indeed, few over forty have not already formulated an opinion with respect to her. There are few neutrals. This column is for the millennial generation, those who never knew the Bill Clinton Administration. As the establishment media have already elected her their Democratic Presidential Candidate, with no opportunity for competition or dissenting public expression, younger voters need to know something of her past.
We begin with Whitewater. Here the Clinton’s (Bill and Hillary), while governor and first lady of Arkansas and the McDougals (Jim and Susan), formed the Whitewater Development Corporation. The four purchased 230 acres of undeveloped land on the White River intending to create vacation home lots for retirees. It is alleged that Bill Clinton used his influence as governor to pressure David Hale to lend $300,000 to Susan McDougal, a Clinton partner, in the land deal. At the time Jim McDougal was Governor Clinton’s economic adviser and later created his own bank, the Madison Guaranty to fund the project, hiring attorney Hillary Clinton of the Rose Law Firm to make everything legal. The four equal partners were intricately connected. The scheme collapsed in 1989. Ultimately fifteen associated with this fraudulent land deal, which ended costing many retirees their life savings, and the tax payer some $73 million; went to jail—everyone except the Clinton’s. Even Jim Guy Tucker the governor succeeding Bill served time, so extensive did Whitewater become.
By the time everything came to a head the Clinton’s were in the White House and had legions of defenders and records were strangely hidden or misplaced. Independent Counsel Robert Fiske ordered the Clinton’s to surrender documents relating to the corrupt Madison Guaranty. The Clinton’s reported them as missing. But two years later they mysteriously reappeared, found on the desk of Hillary’s personal secretary. By this time much of the heat was off and the story largely undermined by a sympathetic Clinton press. Besides, the special prosecutor, Robert Fiske, had been chosen by President Clinton to be his new Attorney General. Kenneth Starr continued the Whitewater investigation but leading witnesses Susan McDougal, Jim Guy Tucker, and Clinton’s Attorney General Webster Hubbell, a Rose Law Firm friend of Hillary Clinton, refused to cooperate as key witnesses against the Clintons with the latter pleading the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination. President Bill Clinton later pardoned Susan McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker. The story fades away replaced largely by the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal.
The mysterious death of the Clinton Deputy White House counsel, Vince Foster, added much intrigue to the story. He had been the special friend of Hillary and a Rose Law Firm associate, and was charged with defending the Clintons on Whitewater charges. He was murdered or committed suicide, at Fort Marcy Park, Virginia. White House counsel Bernard Nussbaum removed Foster’s files on Whitewater from Foster’s desk so they could not to be discovered by park police.
But this is only one of a good number of scandals in which Hillary is a leading participant. Perhaps another column will be necessary outlining her involvement, alleged or otherwise, in: File Gate, Cattle Futures Gate, Travel Gate, and half dozen more. In fact, if she announces her candidacy for the president, she will be the most scandal ridden potential presidential candidate in U. S. History. She and her devoted followers would say that it is just the “vast right conspiracy,” but there are far too many of these to feel comfortable with this explanation. Certainly the Email Scandal suggests bi-partisan concern for her probable serious security breaches as Secretary of State.
