A shocking new study shows that people still experience awareness for up to three minutes after they had been pronounced dead.
Life after death? This could have a negative impact on Democrat voter turnout.
A shocking new study shows that people still experience awareness for up to three minutes after they had been pronounced dead.
Life after death? This could have a negative impact on Democrat voter turnout.
Now let’s study whether truth, logic, and the rule of law can experience awareness three minutes after they have been pronounced dead:
.
State Dept.: ‘No Evidence’ That ‘Deliberately Edited’ Videotape Was Meant to Conceal Information
The U.S. State Department on Thursday said there is “no evidence” that a “deliberately edited” videotape of its Dec. 2, 2013 State Department briefing was intended to “conceal information from the public,” even though someone requested the edit.
Spokesman John Kirby said a months-long internal investigation was unable to identify the person who asked for the edit: “And while the technician recalls receiving a phone call requesting the edit, there is no evidence to indicate who might’ve placed that call or why.”
Kirby also said even if the video was edited with the intent to conceal, “There was no policy in place at the time prohibiting such an act.”
. . .
“As you know, when this matter came to light, many of us, including Secretary Kerry, had concerns and questions as to how and why this had happened. And so at the secretary’s request, the Office of the Legal Advisers spent the last several months looking deeper into the issue,” he said.
“All told, they have spoken with more than 30 current and former employees at all levels of seniority, and they’ve gone through e-mails and other documents to see what information might be available. They’ve now compiled their findings and a description of their process into a fact-finding review, which has been provided to the secretary. We’re also sharing it today with Congress and the inspector general.”
— Cybercast News Service | August 19, 2016 | Susan Jones
.
[In a surprise twist, rather than blaming known actors and motives on a video, they’re blaming unknown actors and unknown motives for missing video. That’s creative.]
“meant” “intend” can’t prove either so neither happened.
“at the time.”
– – – – “There was no policy in place at the time prohibiting such an act.”
Reporter should have asked,
“Is there such a policy in place now?”
If “No,” “Why not?”
If “Yes,” “Why?”
—
– – – – – “a months-long internal investigation was unable to identify the person who asked for the edit: “And while the technician recalls receiving a phone call requesting the edit, there is no evidence to indicate who might’ve placed that call or why.”
Reporter should have asked,
“Did the months-long internal investigation enable you to identify the name of the technician who received the call?”
If “No,” “Are you f–ing kidding me?”
If “Yes,” “Can we have that name?”
>>> If “Yes” to this, contact technician and ask for clarification of details.
>>> If “Yes; But for confidentiality reasons we cannot release that name,” then: “So why should we assume you would have told us the name of the person who asked for the edit?”
So a technician, based upon an anonymous phone call, edits important documents. Hmmm, and if he made the “Wrong” edit he would tell his boss what? Someone said make a change. Who? Don’t know, is that important?
{chuckle!} {{Interpolations in brackets are mine, not the article’s}}
State Dept.: ‘We Have Hit a Dead End’ On Who Ordered Video Edit
…
The State Department first called the deletion “a glitch” before admitting it was a deliberate order made by someone it says is not known at this point.
Toner told reporters that the deletion occurred after a video technician got a call from someone within the public affairs department, acting on behest of someone else within the bureau.
Toner also made contradictory statements over whether the identity of the person who relayed the request was known.
“Yes, it was — so the request was — and we sort of know, obviously, who made that request, but that that was passing on a request from somewhere else within the Public Affairs Bureau,” Toner said. “The individual in question here does not remember who told him or her to carry out this order. It was a phone call that took place three years ago.”
{Heh! The old “Dude, it was like three years ago” defense!}
“We’re not going to question their memory, but at this point, we believe that we’ve done the forensics.”
{Excellent job!}
Toner also said the technician remembers the gender of the person who called, but that he was “not allowed to share that.”
{May one ask why you did the forensics, then?}
“We do know that and I’m not allowed to share that,” Toner said.
But later in the briefing, Toner indicated the Department has “not been able to clarify” who placed the call relaying the order to the video technician.
It’s unclear whether he meant he could not “clarify” that for reporters, or that he did not know.
And as far as who decided and directed others to make the edit happen, Toner said, “We don’t have that individual, or that individual’s name.”
Toner said the department has looked through a staff roster and taken “commonsense steps” to get to the bottom of the decision. He said he could not confirm whether phone records were examined, but he would check.
He also said there were no plans to interview the roughly 300 employees in the public affairs bureau to determine who made the original request.
{Awesome forensics!}
“If somebody wants to come forward with that, then we would welcome that, obviously,” he said. “If we get new information as to where this request came from, we will investigate further.”
{chuckle}
— The Hill | June 2, 2016 | Kristina Wong
State Dept. Is Searching Emails Of ‘4 Or 5’ Officials As Part Of Video Edit Investigation
Daily Caller / Chuck Ross / 6/8/2016
The State Department is searching the emails of “four or five” current and former press office officials as part of its investigation into who ordered the deletion of eight minutes of video from a Dec. 2, 2013, press briefing, a spokesman said Wednesday.
{They’re relentless!!}
Okay I’ll admit it, I zzyzx made the request. Yep it was me, it’s a hobby of mine you see. I call various government agencies on a regular basis and anonymously request low level clerks and technicians to make changes to policy papers, memorandums, requests from congress, and videotapes. They never question me or refuse to do as I ask and I can’t began to tell you how many government policies I’ve changed over the years using this method. It’s easy, I just use an authoritative stern voice and tell the low level type I’m the Director of this, or the Representative of that, the Undersecretary of the agency they work for, or that I’m calling on behalf of the Oval Office. Works every time…and they never can remember me as I never actually give them a name…you should try it.