China is leading the way in green technology investment
China leads the way because they have the biggest hunger for MORE ENERGY. They aren't going green, they're adding things like solar, hydro, and wind to their existing infrastructure because they need WAY MORE ENERGY. Meanwhile, they're still putting several brand new coal-fired power plants online every month, badly burning all sorts of hydrocarbons in wildly accelerating volumes, and poisoning their country by the minute with horrendous smog and other pollutants. They're not dialing that carbon-based energy down, they're frantically increasing their use of it... AND also adding other "greener" energy sources because they can. And of course they are willing to use government money to subsidize the manufacturing of things like commercial/grid-scale solar because they're still a government-run economy, and the can also write up some more foreign debt or collect some more hard foreign currency by selling these under-priced/subsidized products in other countries at prices that drive competitors out of business.
Yes, it's a giant finger given to the people who wanted to use climate change concerns as a way to make countries like the US fork over a bunch of cash to other countries with no obligation on their part to spend it on anything in particular, while also leaving "developing" countries like China completely off the hook.
Meanwhile, everything that's already being done to develop new and more efficient, cleaner technologies will continue to happen anyway. The Paris agreement was just Obama genuflecting in an act of political vanity and pandering, and would have had zero impact on the climate while mostly just costing citizens in the US a pile of money for no clear climate-related purpose or meaningful outcome.
So the GP asks for evidence of Democrat gerrymandering, and I provide what most reformers on that subject consider to be the most egregious long-running example of it in the country, which has been festering for decades under one-party control. This was provided in response to the GP's you-must-be-lying tone. Democrats who complain about local legislatures setting up congressional districts are famously pious about it, but only when it suits them. Show me some hand-wringing from the left over the example I provided, and we'll talk.
So what you're saying is that Comey committed a felony by not reporting an actual attempt at obstruction immediately as he is required to do, and then he also perjured himself in March when under sworn testimony he again said he was never asked to alter or stop any investigation. That's what you're saying, right? Felony misprision and perjury on Comey's part, right?
OK, how about... Maryland? Considered the worst example of gerrymandering in the country, and it's been done by and for a purely Democrat, monolithic state legislature that has maintained its power through truly absurd district boundary definitions. Of course, you know this, and are pretending you don't for lazy rhetorical reasons. But that's a great example, and it is 100% on the Democrats, and has been for years and years. It reached its current level of crazy specifically to split a district that was long represented by a very moderate Republican (Connie Morella) so that Chris Van Hollen could occupy that seat. I know, it's still OK with you, because it's Democrats doing it.
Here, enjoy a taste of how the Democrats designed the 3rd District, some of which only occupies the shoulders of certain roads, so that voting blocks could be glued together for maximum D control:
How is the US congress not starting impeachment procedures already?
Because saying that you hope the months-long investigation (which turned up zero illegal conduct by Flynn) of a guy that had just exited the stage by being fired is a perfectly reasonable expression of exactly how he felt about the situation. It was going nowhere, and had absolutely no relevance to the "Russians meddling with our democracy!" narrative.
Regardless, Comey did NOT think that the conversation was obstruction of justice. How do we know? Because if he'd though that, and failed to immediately report that to DOJ, he (Comey) committed a felony. And then a few weeks later, in March, when he testified under oath that he had not been asked or pressured to diminish any investigation in which the FBI was involved, he'd have perjured himself. The bar for what qualifies as actual obstruction is quite high. Trump saying, in effect, "This investigation is just a waste of time for everybody involved, I hope you can wrap it up soon," isn't any different than Obama - right in the middle a huge FBI investigation into the partisan corruption in the IRS - telling us and the FBI people working on that whole demonstrably illegal conduct that, no, there wasn't even a "smidgen" of wrongdoing there, and everybody needed to move on. Of course, in THAT scenario, the landscape was littered with immunity deals and pleadings of the fifth because there actually was real wrong doing with lots of victims.
The most interesting thing that came out of this was Comey's noting that the Obama administration told him to lie about the investigation into Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified information. You know, right from the mouth of Loretta Lynch. She who had a nice meeting with the husband of the person being criminally investigated. Hillaryarious.
Not to be confused, of course, with the Democrats' obscene gerrymandering, which they've been doing for decades. Oh, right, that's OK because they're Democrats and always get a pass.
No, he didn't say that. Stop lying. He explained how he felt about it, appropriateness-wise. If he actually thought there was a REAL attempt to obstruct justice, he was obliged to report it to DOJ immediately, and if he didn't he not only perjured himself in his sworn testimony in March, he also committed the felony of not reporting it. He didn't report it, and swore in March that it didn't happen (an attempt at obstruction) because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. At least, it's his sworn opinion that there was no obstruction attempt. He said today that it was up to Mueller. And Mueller has interviewed him extensively, and approved of his remarks today. If Mueller thought there was an obstruction crime to pursue, he wouldn't have sent his ONLY witness (Comey) out to say under oath that it didn't happen.
Amazon has become the company store. Does this make them a monopolistic institution?
What? Do you actually understand what that term means, in the context in which you seem to mean it? A "company store" (in the Eeeeevil flavor that you seem to want it to be) would be like a grocery store out on the edges of an old railroad project that becomes the only place the on-site labor can buy things. Or a "store" where the workers are paid in the form of credit at that store, and that's the only way to be compensated for their work.
Amazon's offering of small loans to sellers who CHOOSE to use Amazon's high-visibility web site and fulfillment services is just one choice of many that such sellers can make. And they can still use Amazon's e-commerce platform by, of course, getting a loan (if they need one) through any of thousands of banks, government small business organizations, etc. No, the fact that Amazon also offers such services doesn't make them a monopoly. They're not the only company selling and shipping things after you use a web site to shop. They're not the only company allowing third parties to retail through their platform. And they're sure as hell not the only business offering capital to other businesses.
Actually, the funny guy, here is you - quick with the lazy ad hominem and slow (well, can't even be bothered) with pointing out how the actual substance of the comment is incorrect. That's the very mechanism of political correctness hard at work. "I don't like your tone! Never mind what you said, the fact is you're a bad person making bad points saying bad things and I shall condescendingly call you funny and your behavior ironic!" Meanwhile, I made a perfectly valid point. It's a shame it got under your skin so directly, but that actually is the point I was making. Thanks for helping out!
You're deliberately pretending to miss the point. Just like there are "Native American" types who get all upset when you point out they're just Asian immigrants who walked over (and didn't spring magically forth from any particularly sacred land, etc), there are plenty of people who are really invested in the Mankind Is From Africa narrative, and who then tack onto it all sorts of nonsense. Because of political correctness, that nonsense is never simply pointed out for being what it is. Some nice new finds that take all the fun out of rabid Afrocentrism might help to get people to stop obsessing about that.
300,000-year-old homo sapiens in Morocco is pretty interesting. But near precursors weren't only in Africa. The familiar narrative is being disturbed by other politically incorrect discoveries, such as 7.2 million year old ancestors in Bulgaria:
Do you know what leading means? It doesn't mean "most popular." It means "reporting on stories that other outlets aren't yet reporting on."
No, that's NOT what "leading" means in any remotely appropriate context. "Leading" means "widely consumed, ahead of others." It means, "noted for actually be better at something that most others."
But even if we were to accept you out-of-context use of the term, The Intercept is still no such thing. That Russian (and Chinese, and Iranian, and North Korean) hackers send spearfishing emails to people in every industry, including to the businesses that manufacture voting hardware and to the local government operations that conduct every aspect of public life (including, but not even close to merely the voting process) is common knowledge. This isn't that being "exposed" or something being discovered. This is just one of The Intercepts breathless fangirls trying to prop up their lefty street cred by giving them something that feels nice and authoritatively insider-ish so they can pretend they actually ARE a leading media outlet. Of course they're not leading anything, and her illegal transfer of information to them didn't break any actual news or shine any new light on anything. She's ruined her life in a bit of lazy political attention-whoring for a cause that's based on nothing but BS in the first place. And for that supremely bad judgement and deliberate act, she should get exactly what the law calls for.
Exposing hidden evidence of a foreign power attacking US voting machines? Whistleblowing works for me.
There was no "exposure" of this information, as Russian (and Chinese, and everyone else) poking and prodding at the email addresses of companies and organizations involved in our voting infrastructure and processes goes on every day and has been for years, both here and in every other country. She'd only be a "whistleblower" if she was aware of information that showed her own government was somehow the cause of or party to this - and the information she illegally passed along shows no such thing. It showed classified details about facts already, in broader terms, well understood by anybody with a casual interest and access to Google. She did this strictly for street cred and bragging rights so one of her favorite lefty media outlets could show how active it is, even if the documents she gave them shed exactly zero new light on the important aspects of the topic. All she did was expose classified nitty-gritty details that may, perhaps, help the spearfishing Russians to get a little better at what they do.
At no point were voting machines attacked, or any data altered. Implying that is just another attempt to deflect attention from why the party that's experienced such losses through the last few elections crashed and burned so badly in November in a continuation of that losing streak. This woman who leaked the data sounds, based on her unhinged postings, like someone who absolutely could never bring herself to stop for a moment and wonder why the Democrats had lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House and (as a result) the Supreme Court. Too much for her to process, because it would require some actual self-evaluation that would take the fun out of her crazy world view. So, she did what she did because it's the child-like, romantic #RESIST! thing to do, because that sort of phony posturing is really all she and the people she's cheering for actually have.
No, juries are NOT supposed to judge the law. That's what challenges, brought as necessary before voters (to change out the legislature to one that might change the law) or through constitutionality tests before courts (up to the SCOTUS) are for. The jury is supposed to do what the judge says: evaluate whether or not the prosecution has shown that the defendant broke the law. Period. That is the "exact function" of the jury, and we have other mechanisms in place with the "exact function" of changing laws or, if they are unconstitutional, dismantling them in whole or in part.
Where do you draw the line between someone with "acceptable" political beliefs or not?
Well, you could start with her actual behavior and words. Having a security clearance in an era where acts of terrorism by and on behalf of entities like Iran, or groups like ISIS actually, you know, kill lots of people and involve us putting a lot of effort into clandestinely trying to stop such things... means that when someone like her cheers on Iran and its mullahs in social media, or says publicly that being white is an act of terrorism... that pretty well defines someone whose judgement should not be trusted when it comes to maintaining the security of classified material.
A lot of people aren't interested in simply sitting around the house, and don't have the disposable income to spend it on traditional airfare, hotels, extra tanks of gas, food out, and other "vacation"-ish activities. Yes, there are plenty of cheap (or free) things to do. But many typical 40-hour-a-week types already DO those things evenings and weekends all year long. Don't underestimate the "I can't afford a vacation anyway, and don't feel like sitting at home so I can have a really sucky following week catching up on my work" factor.
What? The GP asked if the protesters broke laws. They did. Mentioning their giant pile of trash simply goes to their hypocrisy, that's all.
And if you were REALLY worried about constitutional matters, you'd be talking about last week's report about the FISA court's scathing rebuke of the Obama administration's funneling of NSA-collected surveillance of US citizens through the FBI to third parties, without any warrants or other court cover. I know, just because the court told them specifically to stop that and how to be compliant, and that the Obama administration blew that off, it's OK because that wasn't a private security company dealing with externally funded trespassers trying to shut down a business's legal activity.
They left their tents and gear behind (and yes some trash) because they were arrested. That doesn't make them bad hippies.
No, they left a HUGE pile of trash behind when staying out in the cold weather became unpleasant and no longer worth the money they were getting from the people backing them. This wasn't "tents and gear." It was an entire dump's worth of trash.
Yes. We don't even have to get into the gigantic mountain of trash they left once they weather turned and they went home. They trespassed repeatedly, blocked public roads - plenty of illegal things. But because they were well funded and backed by know-nothing celebrities, the usual get-yourself-arrested stuff wasn't worth the trouble to prosecute. It was obvious they were going to pull an Occupy Everything and wander off when it became inconvenient to stay. But other people still had to spend weeks cleaning up after them and trucking off their trash and abandoned dogs.
Nope, Bill DID collect the huge "speaking fee" and the deal DID go down on Hillary Clinton's watch as the nation's top diplomat. Without approval from the State Department, deals like that do NOT go down. She was running the State Department. And she and her husband collected the cash.
Slashdot Mirror
China is leading the way in green technology investment
China leads the way because they have the biggest hunger for MORE ENERGY. They aren't going green, they're adding things like solar, hydro, and wind to their existing infrastructure because they need WAY MORE ENERGY. Meanwhile, they're still putting several brand new coal-fired power plants online every month, badly burning all sorts of hydrocarbons in wildly accelerating volumes, and poisoning their country by the minute with horrendous smog and other pollutants. They're not dialing that carbon-based energy down, they're frantically increasing their use of it ... AND also adding other "greener" energy sources because they can. And of course they are willing to use government money to subsidize the manufacturing of things like commercial/grid-scale solar because they're still a government-run economy, and the can also write up some more foreign debt or collect some more hard foreign currency by selling these under-priced/subsidized products in other countries at prices that drive competitors out of business.
But don't kid yourself about China going green.
Yes, it's a giant finger given to the people who wanted to use climate change concerns as a way to make countries like the US fork over a bunch of cash to other countries with no obligation on their part to spend it on anything in particular, while also leaving "developing" countries like China completely off the hook.
Meanwhile, everything that's already being done to develop new and more efficient, cleaner technologies will continue to happen anyway. The Paris agreement was just Obama genuflecting in an act of political vanity and pandering, and would have had zero impact on the climate while mostly just costing citizens in the US a pile of money for no clear climate-related purpose or meaningful outcome.
So the GP asks for evidence of Democrat gerrymandering, and I provide what most reformers on that subject consider to be the most egregious long-running example of it in the country, which has been festering for decades under one-party control. This was provided in response to the GP's you-must-be-lying tone. Democrats who complain about local legislatures setting up congressional districts are famously pious about it, but only when it suits them. Show me some hand-wringing from the left over the example I provided, and we'll talk.
So what you're saying is that Comey committed a felony by not reporting an actual attempt at obstruction immediately as he is required to do, and then he also perjured himself in March when under sworn testimony he again said he was never asked to alter or stop any investigation. That's what you're saying, right? Felony misprision and perjury on Comey's part, right?
OK, how about ... Maryland? Considered the worst example of gerrymandering in the country, and it's been done by and for a purely Democrat, monolithic state legislature that has maintained its power through truly absurd district boundary definitions. Of course, you know this, and are pretending you don't for lazy rhetorical reasons. But that's a great example, and it is 100% on the Democrats, and has been for years and years. It reached its current level of crazy specifically to split a district that was long represented by a very moderate Republican (Connie Morella) so that Chris Van Hollen could occupy that seat. I know, it's still OK with you, because it's Democrats doing it.
Here, enjoy a taste of how the Democrats designed the 3rd District, some of which only occupies the shoulders of certain roads, so that voting blocks could be glued together for maximum D control:
https://patch.com/maryland/ann...
How is the US congress not starting impeachment procedures already?
Because saying that you hope the months-long investigation (which turned up zero illegal conduct by Flynn) of a guy that had just exited the stage by being fired is a perfectly reasonable expression of exactly how he felt about the situation. It was going nowhere, and had absolutely no relevance to the "Russians meddling with our democracy!" narrative.
Regardless, Comey did NOT think that the conversation was obstruction of justice. How do we know? Because if he'd though that, and failed to immediately report that to DOJ, he (Comey) committed a felony. And then a few weeks later, in March, when he testified under oath that he had not been asked or pressured to diminish any investigation in which the FBI was involved, he'd have perjured himself. The bar for what qualifies as actual obstruction is quite high. Trump saying, in effect, "This investigation is just a waste of time for everybody involved, I hope you can wrap it up soon," isn't any different than Obama - right in the middle a huge FBI investigation into the partisan corruption in the IRS - telling us and the FBI people working on that whole demonstrably illegal conduct that, no, there wasn't even a "smidgen" of wrongdoing there, and everybody needed to move on. Of course, in THAT scenario, the landscape was littered with immunity deals and pleadings of the fifth because there actually was real wrong doing with lots of victims.
The most interesting thing that came out of this was Comey's noting that the Obama administration told him to lie about the investigation into Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified information. You know, right from the mouth of Loretta Lynch. She who had a nice meeting with the husband of the person being criminally investigated. Hillaryarious.
Not to be confused, of course, with the Democrats' obscene gerrymandering, which they've been doing for decades. Oh, right, that's OK because they're Democrats and always get a pass.
OK, you've got the procedure correctly described. But you're still avoiding any description of the actual crime you think has been committed, and why.
No, he didn't say that. Stop lying. He explained how he felt about it, appropriateness-wise. If he actually thought there was a REAL attempt to obstruct justice, he was obliged to report it to DOJ immediately, and if he didn't he not only perjured himself in his sworn testimony in March, he also committed the felony of not reporting it. He didn't report it, and swore in March that it didn't happen (an attempt at obstruction) because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. At least, it's his sworn opinion that there was no obstruction attempt. He said today that it was up to Mueller. And Mueller has interviewed him extensively, and approved of his remarks today. If Mueller thought there was an obstruction crime to pursue, he wouldn't have sent his ONLY witness (Comey) out to say under oath that it didn't happen.
Amazon has become the company store. Does this make them a monopolistic institution?
What? Do you actually understand what that term means, in the context in which you seem to mean it? A "company store" (in the Eeeeevil flavor that you seem to want it to be) would be like a grocery store out on the edges of an old railroad project that becomes the only place the on-site labor can buy things. Or a "store" where the workers are paid in the form of credit at that store, and that's the only way to be compensated for their work.
Amazon's offering of small loans to sellers who CHOOSE to use Amazon's high-visibility web site and fulfillment services is just one choice of many that such sellers can make. And they can still use Amazon's e-commerce platform by, of course, getting a loan (if they need one) through any of thousands of banks, government small business organizations, etc. No, the fact that Amazon also offers such services doesn't make them a monopoly. They're not the only company selling and shipping things after you use a web site to shop. They're not the only company allowing third parties to retail through their platform. And they're sure as hell not the only business offering capital to other businesses.
Actually, the funny guy, here is you - quick with the lazy ad hominem and slow (well, can't even be bothered) with pointing out how the actual substance of the comment is incorrect. That's the very mechanism of political correctness hard at work. "I don't like your tone! Never mind what you said, the fact is you're a bad person making bad points saying bad things and I shall condescendingly call you funny and your behavior ironic!" Meanwhile, I made a perfectly valid point. It's a shame it got under your skin so directly, but that actually is the point I was making. Thanks for helping out!
You're deliberately pretending to miss the point. Just like there are "Native American" types who get all upset when you point out they're just Asian immigrants who walked over (and didn't spring magically forth from any particularly sacred land, etc), there are plenty of people who are really invested in the Mankind Is From Africa narrative, and who then tack onto it all sorts of nonsense. Because of political correctness, that nonsense is never simply pointed out for being what it is. Some nice new finds that take all the fun out of rabid Afrocentrism might help to get people to stop obsessing about that.
300,000-year-old homo sapiens in Morocco is pretty interesting. But near precursors weren't only in Africa. The familiar narrative is being disturbed by other politically incorrect discoveries, such as 7.2 million year old ancestors in Bulgaria:
http://archaeologyinbulgaria.c...
Do you know what leading means? It doesn't mean "most popular." It means "reporting on stories that other outlets aren't yet reporting on."
No, that's NOT what "leading" means in any remotely appropriate context. "Leading" means "widely consumed, ahead of others." It means, "noted for actually be better at something that most others."
But even if we were to accept you out-of-context use of the term, The Intercept is still no such thing. That Russian (and Chinese, and Iranian, and North Korean) hackers send spearfishing emails to people in every industry, including to the businesses that manufacture voting hardware and to the local government operations that conduct every aspect of public life (including, but not even close to merely the voting process) is common knowledge. This isn't that being "exposed" or something being discovered. This is just one of The Intercepts breathless fangirls trying to prop up their lefty street cred by giving them something that feels nice and authoritatively insider-ish so they can pretend they actually ARE a leading media outlet. Of course they're not leading anything, and her illegal transfer of information to them didn't break any actual news or shine any new light on anything. She's ruined her life in a bit of lazy political attention-whoring for a cause that's based on nothing but BS in the first place. And for that supremely bad judgement and deliberate act, she should get exactly what the law calls for.
Exposing hidden evidence of a foreign power attacking US voting machines? Whistleblowing works for me.
There was no "exposure" of this information, as Russian (and Chinese, and everyone else) poking and prodding at the email addresses of companies and organizations involved in our voting infrastructure and processes goes on every day and has been for years, both here and in every other country. She'd only be a "whistleblower" if she was aware of information that showed her own government was somehow the cause of or party to this - and the information she illegally passed along shows no such thing. It showed classified details about facts already, in broader terms, well understood by anybody with a casual interest and access to Google. She did this strictly for street cred and bragging rights so one of her favorite lefty media outlets could show how active it is, even if the documents she gave them shed exactly zero new light on the important aspects of the topic. All she did was expose classified nitty-gritty details that may, perhaps, help the spearfishing Russians to get a little better at what they do.
At no point were voting machines attacked, or any data altered. Implying that is just another attempt to deflect attention from why the party that's experienced such losses through the last few elections crashed and burned so badly in November in a continuation of that losing streak. This woman who leaked the data sounds, based on her unhinged postings, like someone who absolutely could never bring herself to stop for a moment and wonder why the Democrats had lost nearly a thousand legislative seats, most of the governorships, both houses of congress, the White House and (as a result) the Supreme Court. Too much for her to process, because it would require some actual self-evaluation that would take the fun out of her crazy world view. So, she did what she did because it's the child-like, romantic #RESIST! thing to do, because that sort of phony posturing is really all she and the people she's cheering for actually have.
No, juries are NOT supposed to judge the law. That's what challenges, brought as necessary before voters (to change out the legislature to one that might change the law) or through constitutionality tests before courts (up to the SCOTUS) are for. The jury is supposed to do what the judge says: evaluate whether or not the prosecution has shown that the defendant broke the law. Period. That is the "exact function" of the jury, and we have other mechanisms in place with the "exact function" of changing laws or, if they are unconstitutional, dismantling them in whole or in part.
Where do you draw the line between someone with "acceptable" political beliefs or not?
Well, you could start with her actual behavior and words. Having a security clearance in an era where acts of terrorism by and on behalf of entities like Iran, or groups like ISIS actually, you know, kill lots of people and involve us putting a lot of effort into clandestinely trying to stop such things ... means that when someone like her cheers on Iran and its mullahs in social media, or says publicly that being white is an act of terrorism ... that pretty well defines someone whose judgement should not be trusted when it comes to maintaining the security of classified material.
Careful, your susceptibility to confirmation bias is showing.
A lot of people aren't interested in simply sitting around the house, and don't have the disposable income to spend it on traditional airfare, hotels, extra tanks of gas, food out, and other "vacation"-ish activities. Yes, there are plenty of cheap (or free) things to do. But many typical 40-hour-a-week types already DO those things evenings and weekends all year long. Don't underestimate the "I can't afford a vacation anyway, and don't feel like sitting at home so I can have a really sucky following week catching up on my work" factor.
Either this post is ironic, or you are so deep in the tank you don't even know there's a tank.
Not that you could be troubled to even hint at why he's incorrect, and instead lazily attack the messenger.
And then I made the conversation about hypocrisy. I see you're immune from such worries.
What? The GP asked if the protesters broke laws. They did. Mentioning their giant pile of trash simply goes to their hypocrisy, that's all.
And if you were REALLY worried about constitutional matters, you'd be talking about last week's report about the FISA court's scathing rebuke of the Obama administration's funneling of NSA-collected surveillance of US citizens through the FBI to third parties, without any warrants or other court cover. I know, just because the court told them specifically to stop that and how to be compliant, and that the Obama administration blew that off, it's OK because that wasn't a private security company dealing with externally funded trespassers trying to shut down a business's legal activity.
They left their tents and gear behind (and yes some trash) because they were arrested. That doesn't make them bad hippies.
No, they left a HUGE pile of trash behind when staying out in the cold weather became unpleasant and no longer worth the money they were getting from the people backing them. This wasn't "tents and gear." It was an entire dump's worth of trash.
Did the protestors engage in anything illegal?
Yes. We don't even have to get into the gigantic mountain of trash they left once they weather turned and they went home. They trespassed repeatedly, blocked public roads - plenty of illegal things. But because they were well funded and backed by know-nothing celebrities, the usual get-yourself-arrested stuff wasn't worth the trouble to prosecute. It was obvious they were going to pull an Occupy Everything and wander off when it became inconvenient to stay. But other people still had to spend weeks cleaning up after them and trucking off their trash and abandoned dogs.
Nope, Bill DID collect the huge "speaking fee" and the deal DID go down on Hillary Clinton's watch as the nation's top diplomat. Without approval from the State Department, deals like that do NOT go down. She was running the State Department. And she and her husband collected the cash.