Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (843316)	3/17/2015 5:15:29 PM
From: TideGlider	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB jlallen Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573096

That is incorrect and likely pulled straight from your rectum. The Secretary of State is employed by the State Department They are (SOS) appointed by the President, but are not on the Presidents payroll.

To: combjelly who wrote (843316)	3/17/2015 5:22:05 PM
From: Bill	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB jlallen Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573096

Pretty amazing that the only person with the documents and records that matter (sec of State) is exempt from the requirement to turn them over. That's so fukked up, it was probably designed by the government.

To: combjelly who wrote (843316)	3/17/2015 5:44:12 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573096

>> The thing is, a Secretary of State isn't an employee of the State Department, they were appointed to run it. The law is specific on this: Appointees of the president are required to sign the form. Furthermore, what would be the point of such a form if you didn't require the person at the top to sign it? That makes no sense at all. I have, many times, required an officer of a corporation to sign a representation letter before I signed an audit report. There is a reason for this: The guy at the top has to take responsibility. That's what you're doing. In this case, Hillary was the guy at the top. If you're not getting her signature, there is absolutely no reason at all for the getting the signatures of her underlings. This is the nature of representation letters. They don't make illegal acts legal; they serve to get it on record that a person of importance represents that particular events happened. So, if a legal situation comes up later, everyone knows exactly what the intent was. Whether other secretaries did or did not do this is (a) unknown, since these people will lie through their teeth, and (b) irrelevant. They aren't running for the presidency.