Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2015/08/28 20:40:34
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
An FBI "A-team" is leading the "extremely serious" investigation into Hillary Clinton's server and the focus includes a provision of the law pertaining to "gathering, transmitting or losing defense information," an intelligence source told Fox News.
The section of the Espionage Act is known as 18 US Code 793.
A separate source, who also was not authorized to speak on the record, said the FBI will further determine whether Clinton should have known, based on the quality and detail of the material, that emails passing through her server contained classified information regardless of the markings. The campaign's standard defense and that of Clinton is that she "never sent nor received any email that was marked classified" at the time.
It is not clear how the FBI team's findings will impact the probe itself. But the details offer a window into what investigators are looking for -- as the Clinton campaign itself downplays the controversy.
The FBI offered no comment, citing the ongoing investigation.
A leading national security attorney, who recently defended former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling in a leak investigation, told Fox News that violating the Espionage Act provision in question is a felony and pointed to a particular sub-section.
"Under [sub-section] F, the documents relate to the national defense, meaning very closely held information," attorney Edward MacMahon Jr. explained. "Somebody in the government, with a clearance and need to know, then delivered the information to someone not entitled to receive it, or otherwise moved it from where it was supposed to be lawfully held."
Additional federal regulations, reviewed by Fox News, also bring fresh scrutiny to Clinton's defense.
The Code of Federal Regulations, or "CFR," states: "Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person(s) shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose."
A government legal source confirmed the regulations apply to all government employees holding a clearance, and the rules do not make the "send" or "receive" distinction.
Rather, all clearances holders have an affirmative obligation to report the possible compromise of classified information or use of unsecured data systems.
Current and former intelligence officers say the application of these federal regulations is very straightforward.
"Regardless of whether Mrs. Clinton sent or received this information, the obligations under the law are that she had to report any questions concerning this material being classified," said Chris Farrell, a former Army counterintelligence officer who is now an investigator with Judicial Watch. "There is no wiggle room. There is no ability to go around it and say I passively received something -- that's not an excuse."
The regulations also state there is an obligation to meet "safeguarding requirements prescribed by the agency." Based on the regulations, the decision to use a personal email network and server for government business -- and provide copies to Clinton attorney David Kendall -- appear to be violations. According to a letter from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Kendall and his associate did not have sufficient security clearances to hold TS/SCI (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information) contained in two emails. Earlier this month, the FBI took physical custody of the server and thumb drives.
Fox News was first to report, Aug. 19, that two emails -- from aides Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan -- with classified information kick-started the FBI probe, a point not disputed by the Clinton campaign.
The CFR also require a damage assessment once a possible compromise has been identified "to conduct an inquiry/investigation of a loss, possible compromise or unauthorized disclosure of classified information."
Farrell said, "There is no evidence there has been any assessment of Mrs. Clinton and her outlaw server."
Citing the ongoing investigation, a State Department spokesman had no comment, but did confirm that Clinton's immediate staff received regular training on classification issues.
Clinton told reporters Friday that she remains confident no violations were committed.
"I have said repeatedly that I did not send nor receive classified material and I'm very confident that when this entire process plays out that will be understood by everyone," she said. "It will prove what I have been saying and it's not possible for people to look back now some years in the past and draw different conclusions than the ones that were at work at the time. You can make different decisions because things have changed, circumstances have changed, but it doesn't change the fact that I did not send or receive material marked classified."
The Clinton campaign did not provide an on-the-record comment on the matter when given questions by Fox News.
<tinfoil>
Obama's DoJ won't let it get that far... right? I mean... Clinton ought to have some skeletons that would embarrass Obama... dontcha think? Benghazi folks... don't forget the 'ghazi!!
</tinfoil>
This reads to me that it's the Intelligence Community that is pushing the FBI really hard to assert whether or not security laws were broken. Because, if she (or her staff) truly broke the law... then, skates... that'll undermine any future prosecutions of any security malfeasance.
Is team Biden getting ready?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/08/28 21:17:20
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Interesting article on the distribution of campaign donation per candidate. The charts are all in line, so you have to actually to look at the site (but it's just NPR).
Trump is not my guy... but, man, I can see why folks like him:
Trump: Well, I don’t see a lot of protesters. I see thousands of people. And there are a few protesters. And, I figured you’d ask that question because you know, that’s the way it is. CNN is terrible. CNN. Are you with CNN. Are you with CNN. You people do not cover us accurately. So they have a few protesters outside. And thousands of people. And the first question from CNN is about protesters. Yes.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/08/29 00:37:09
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
So, he's moved on from attacking Fox News and Univision to attacking CNN?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/29 00:38:15
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2015/08/29 03:14:18
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Way to go Whembly, the soldier you screenshoted above had a bullet in the arm for fighting for his country in Korea, as a result, he cannot physically make an official salute.
Hey everybody, listen up, Whembly hates american heroes!
I'm going to repeat this every time you post an update about the newest news of the Clinton emails.because the more someone repeats something, the more it makes it true, right?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/29 03:16:09
Help me, Rhonda. HA!
2015/08/29 03:54:07
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ouze wrote: .... are you posting in the right thread?
He's claiming that none of HRC's email snafu is, as Joe Biden said "a big fething deal". Thus, my constant postings on updates along that tangent is participating in the ol' "if you repeat a lie enough, it'll be true" bs.
@Gordon... do you have any constructive criticism? Attacking the messenger won't get you far...
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/08/29 13:28:12
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Hilary is feeling so entitled that her campaign is telling Biden "Don't bother"
Why that should be allowed so early on I do not get. But seems the Powers that be want her to quell the masses, but the masses actually are flocking to Bernie and trump
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
2015/08/31 02:37:27
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: It doesn't really bother me all that much to be honest. Primaries should be internal party affairs anyway and they can set their own rules on how to select their own candidate. I would rather they get rid of the whole primary mess altogether and stop publically financing what amounts to a private members club circle jerk, especially as long as parties are allowed to have closed primaries.
It's either a private election and you can make your own rules, pick who votes, and pay for it with party money; or it's a public election with no undemocratic super delegates, everybody can participate, and then you get to use my tax payer money.
Yeah, either pick your candidate privately, or have a straight up vote. This weirdo hybrid stuff is the worst of both worlds.
But fixing it would require backroom powerbrokers to give up power, so it’s pretty much never going to happen.
How would they stop it? What would they be stopping? At this stage people are just making political calculations on their chances, and Biden is just figuring out if he has a real chance. Clinton is trying to convince him he doesn’t.
How do you outlaw politicians making political judgements?
But seems the Powers that be want her to quell the masses, but the masses actually are flocking to Bernie and trump
This is the absolute best time for outside candidates, especially ones who appeal very strongly to one part of the most committed voters for the party. But while having one or two thousand people turn up to a speech looks amazing on tv, the eventual candidates will draw in more than 60 million votes each. Having 2,000 really enthusiastic voters needs to be understood against that reality.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/31 02:58:17
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2015/08/31 05:19:33
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: It doesn't really bother me all that much to be honest. Primaries should be internal party affairs anyway and they can set their own rules on how to select their own candidate. I would rather they get rid of the whole primary mess altogether and stop publically financing what amounts to a private members club circle jerk, especially as long as parties are allowed to have closed primaries.
It's either a private election and you can make your own rules, pick who votes, and pay for it with party money; or it's a public election with no undemocratic super delegates, everybody can participate, and then you get to use my tax payer money.
Yeah, either pick your candidate privately, or have a straight up vote. This weirdo hybrid stuff is the worst of both worlds.
But fixing it would require backroom powerbrokers to give up power, so it’s pretty much never going to happen.
How would they stop it? What would they be stopping? At this stage people are just making political calculations on their chances, and Biden is just figuring out if he has a real chance. Clinton is trying to convince him he doesn’t.
How do you outlaw politicians making political judgements?
But seems the Powers that be want her to quell the masses, but the masses actually are flocking to Bernie and trump
This is the absolute best time for outside candidates, especially ones who appeal very strongly to one part of the most committed voters for the party. But while having one or two thousand people turn up to a speech looks amazing on tv, the eventual candidates will draw in more than 60 million votes each. Having 2,000 really enthusiastic voters needs to be understood against that reality.
Wel,, when you look at the much higher than 2k attending voters per meet you see the usual politics as usual has lost it's appeal to a great many, especially when Sanders goes and gets thousands in "red" states like SC or AZ or even TX, as he seeks to show the other states he has not given up on them the way the DNC seems to have by not having candidates stump in them, or totally disavowing that they may have democratic voters registered who might be sparked to enthusiasm by getting visitors. I think that at the end, Bernie becoming the Presidential Candidate will show an upset in the way the usual political thinking has slipped up for the DNC, and that their reliance on the usual corporate news types and such failed.
Trump winning the RNC over to face Bernie would also turn people's heads upside down.
Basically while WSJ and WP and NYT are touting Hilary the true grip may be when the masses of Millennials actually vote for Bernie and he becomes President so that the same political BS is overturned, especially if they can als mutser themselves to have more progressive politicians take the seats of the regressives in both parties.
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
2015/08/31 10:51:32
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
shasolenzabi wrote: Wel,, when you look at the much higher than 2k attending voters per meet you see the usual politics as usual has lost it's appeal to a great many, especially when Sanders goes and gets thousands in "red" states like SC or AZ or even TX
Are these "thousands" over and above what the democrat base is, or is it just Democrats who do not want to vote for Hilary?
2015/08/31 12:32:56
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
I am cautiously encouraged by the crowds Sanders gets, but I try to remember that Ron Paul was also very good at getting large crowds and that it never really translated to success in the primaries.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/01 01:34:04
2015/08/31 15:52:31
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Ben Carson, Donald Trump at 23% each show “most Iowa Republicans prefer someone without a traditional political pedigree,” according to Monmouth University Poll.
Results mark first time since July 26 that poll in first four nominating states has shown Trump without nominal lead
Carly Fiorina 10%, Ted Cruz 9%, Scott Walker 7%, Jeb Bush 5%
John Kasich, Marco Rubio 4%, Rand Paul 3%, Mike Huckabee,Rick Santorum 2%
NOTE: Aug. 27-30 phone poll of 405 Iowans likely to attend Republican presidential caucuses has error margin of +/-4.9ppts
Participant seems low... but, at least it's a phone poll.
I like that Fiorina is trending up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I am cautiously encouraged by the crowds Sanders gets, but I try to remember that Rob Paul was also very good at getting large crowds and that it never really translated to success in the primaries.
shasolenzabi wrote: Wel,, when you look at the much higher than 2k attending voters per meet you see the usual politics as usual has lost it's appeal to a great many, especially when Sanders goes and gets thousands in "red" states like SC or AZ or even TX
Are these "thousands" over and above what the democrat base is, or is it just Democrats who do not want to vote for Hilary?
The main point is that his platform/message is along the lines of what people are thinking, and that these large crowds also crop up in states that are listed as "Red-states" by the DNC shows Bernie is right to not forsake any state as the DNC has apparently
"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!
2015/09/01 00:23:23
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
shasolenzabi wrote: Wel,, when you look at the much higher than 2k attending voters per meet you see the usual politics as usual has lost it's appeal to a great many, especially when Sanders goes and gets thousands in "red" states like SC or AZ or even TX, as he seeks to show the other states he has not given up on them the way the DNC seems to have by not having candidates stump in them, or totally disavowing that they may have democratic voters registered who might be sparked to enthusiasm by getting visitors. I think that at the end, Bernie becoming the Presidential Candidate will show an upset in the way the usual political thinking has slipped up for the DNC, and that their reliance on the usual corporate news types and such failed.
No, seriously I'll just say it again - getting a few thousand people to turn up for a speach is nice, and looks great on camera, but it doesn't actually mean anything when a winning electoral count will be in excess of 60 million votes.
The ability to enthuse one wing of your party is nice, but it doesn't actually mean you have any real mainstream support.
If you want to understand Sanders’ real chances of winning the primary, let alone the general, ask yourself who’s bothered to attack him? The guy is vulnerable in all kinds of places, but neither Clinton nor the Republicans have spent any of their time trying to bring him down. Because they know what his real chances are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I am cautiously encouraged by the crowds Sanders gets, but I try to remember that Rob Paul was also very good at getting large crowds and that it never really translated to success in the primaries.
His brother Ron was even better at it
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/01 00:23:32
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2015/09/01 01:33:48
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: Fine, I'll return to the Ron Standard...
In Ron We Trust
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2015/09/01 15:50:20
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
HRC and crew from that time frame going to have to see the FBI panel soon I believe
I wonder who from HRC crew going to throw their self on his/her sword
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
2015/09/01 15:57:21
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Email from Hillary to staff over then-classified document "Just send it!" pic.twitter.com/O813ioq10t
— THE Chris (@Coondawg68) September 1, 2015
And this is embarrassing:
2010 email: @HillaryClinton sent "confidential" David Brock memo about "impeaching" #SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas pic.twitter.com/zrbOgd0ma6
— Dave Levinthal (@davelevinthal) September 1, 2015
Keep in mind... these are printed emails (w/o metadata) that she actually sent to the States Department. NOT the ones she deleted.
For that first one, it still falls on the person who sent the material to her. I can tell you to go rob a bank, but you're the one who goes to jail if you actually do so. Now, an argument can be made if she used her authority to coerce someone ("send it to me or I fire you"), but that doesn't absolve the person who sent it to her.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2015/09/01 23:24:04
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Email from Hillary to staff over then-classified document "Just send it!" pic.twitter.com/O813ioq10t
— THE Chris (@Coondawg68) September 1, 2015
And this is embarrassing:
2010 email: @HillaryClinton sent "confidential" David Brock memo about "impeaching" #SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas pic.twitter.com/zrbOgd0ma6
— Dave Levinthal (@davelevinthal) September 1, 2015
Keep in mind... these are printed emails (w/o metadata) that she actually sent to the States Department. NOT the ones she deleted.
For that first one, it still falls on the person who sent the material to her. I can tell you to go rob a bank, but you're the one who goes to jail if you actually do so. Now, an argument can be made if she used her authority to coerce someone ("send it to me or I fire you"), but that doesn't absolve the person who sent it to her.
I'm confused... she said she didn't receive any classified emails...
You'll notice that the spin is 'evolving'.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2015/09/01 23:51:45
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Email from Hillary to staff over then-classified document "Just send it!" pic.twitter.com/O813ioq10t
— THE Chris (@Coondawg68) September 1, 2015
And this is embarrassing:
2010 email: @HillaryClinton sent "confidential" David Brock memo about "impeaching" #SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas pic.twitter.com/zrbOgd0ma6
— Dave Levinthal (@davelevinthal) September 1, 2015
Keep in mind... these are printed emails (w/o metadata) that she actually sent to the States Department. NOT the ones she deleted.
For that first one, it still falls on the person who sent the material to her. I can tell you to go rob a bank, but you're the one who goes to jail if you actually do so. Now, an argument can be made if she used her authority to coerce someone ("send it to me or I fire you"), but that doesn't absolve the person who sent it to her.
IDK, receiving classified information you aren't supposed to and storing it improperly could definitely be a crime.
If I receive an email containing material of a sexual nature that involves a minor its not a crime necessarily, but if I keep it it is a crime. Similarly here, if you receive classified documents you shouldn't have its a crime if you continue to keep these documents and store them in an improper fashion. And I think in this case "I didn't know" isn't a good enough excuse, we are dealing with national security after all.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
shasolenzabi wrote: Wel,, when you look at the much higher than 2k attending voters per meet you see the usual politics as usual has lost it's appeal to a great many, especially when Sanders goes and gets thousands in "red" states like SC or AZ or even TX
Are these "thousands" over and above what the democrat base is, or is it just Democrats who do not want to vote for Hilary?
Getting 10k+ people to show up and cheer at a rally in Arizona doesn't matter what party they're in.
The Washington Post wrote:
Roughly 28,000 people showed up for a recent Sanders rally in Portland, Ore. The self-described democratic socialist drew 15,000 in Seattle; 11,000 in Phoenix; 10,000 in Madison, Wis.; 8,000 in Dallas; and 4,500 in New Orleans.
Those are huge numbers for a guy who was, until recently, a virtual unknown to the public at large.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/02 00:01:57
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
