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.
2016/03/11 15:02:09
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
" Ben Carson confirms backing for Donald Trump for US presidency "
....
Like almost every truly horrible thing that has ever happened in the history of our world, the end also began with a kiss
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2016/03/11 15:05:39
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
TheMeanDM wrote: Is there some kind of suspension of the constitutional right to free speech when you go to a Trump rally?
I can't wrap my head around how people think that just because it is a (supposedly) " private" event that you are prohibited from expressing any kind of oppositional view....that somehow, you lose your freedom of speech when you walk through the door.
I have seen any number of people (elsewhere in the interwebz) responding with that fallacy.....
This is especially brought up when there is violence (like the sucker punched guy) at Trump rallies.
Expressing your opinion, and even giving the finger as a symbolic gesture, are protected under our Freedom of Speech.
Does not mean "freedom from consequences" though, of course.
Sometimes the consequences of your speech are legal, sometimes illegal.
He was assaulted. That was a direct result (consequence) of his action.
That assault is against the law, and said person should be charged as such.
So there is "fault" on both sides.
Well in a few of these cases they've not given up their right to free speech, but their right to be black.
Just turning up and being black is grounds for security to kick you out and for a 78 year old man to punch you in the face before professing that next time they'll need to kill him because they don't know that he isn't ISIS. I wish I was making this up
Sure...they can kick you out...but people are arguing that you can't even protest...because its "private".
As I said...the constitution isn't magically suspended is it...?
The Constitution prevents Government from restricting your speech, it doesn't apply to private individuals or events.
If there was a law saying you cannot protest at Trump rallies, then it would be a constitutional matter. But a private event can enforce private rules and ask you to leave if you break them. Similar to Dakka being able to kick you out for your speech.
For the protesters side of things: I doubt that we are going to a lot, if any, cases where protesters would be arrested for their speech. So even then it wouldn't be a Constitutional issue. They could probably be arrested for trespassing after they were asked to leave the private event or for causing a disturbance after they were asked to leave.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/11 15:17:32
2016/03/11 15:17:08
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
That is gold. I mean, whether someone agrees with it or not, you have to admire wit when you see it.
That isn't witty at all. It's actually very stupid because it's based on the lie that socialism means taking your individual stuff. Workers owning the means of production means that the people who work the machinery should own the machinery and the products of their labour instead of having it taken from them in return for a wage that is less than the worth of what they make. "Private property" doesn't mean your couch or your jacket or any of that nonsense. It means land, factories, resources. Important things fundamental to the economic system, not whatever chaff it puts out.
So, under socialism as you describe it, who allocates the products of the factories and farms? Products such as the sign in the picture for example?
Citizen's councils and committees are a decent choice. It isn't like we don't already have social and economic sciences so nobody would be fumbling in the dark. For less important things such as the sign it would be up to whoever made it, wouldn't it?
2016/03/11 15:47:20
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Is it a private event when somebody is running for the highest public office in the land?
If it had been Trump's birthday celebrations, fair enough, but a political rally?
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/03/11 15:51:00
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
It's a private event arranged by a private party at a private facility paid for with private money. And with the way our elections are set up he is still "just" participating in a private inter-party election to become a private parties candidate for public office.
It's not an event arranged by a public body or anything like that.
I'm not saying that it isn't weird, and I'm certainly not defending Trump or the morons assaulting people, just explaining why "freedom of speech" doesn't apply.
2016/03/11 16:02:05
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Fair points from both of you, but at the very least, does the public have the right to know who's paying for these events?
I don't know how elections are governed in the USA, but in the UK, you always get to know who's putting the money up.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/03/11 16:05:32
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Fair points from both of you, but at the very least, does the public have the right to know who's paying for these events?
I don't know how elections are governed in the USA, but in the UK, you always get to know who's putting the money up.
If we wanted to know who was ponying up the dough we wouldn't go through so much trouble making laws that obfuscate where money comes from for candidates. This system is for sale but if you have to ask about the price you probably can't afford it.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2016/03/11 17:37:10
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Aaaaaaaand the anti-Trumpers are getting their ducks in a row:
BREAKING: @marcorubio communications director @AlexConant tells us Rubio supporters in Ohio should vote for @JohnKasich.@ThisHour
— John Berman (@JohnBerman) March 11, 2016
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/11 17:38:30
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Fair points from both of you, but at the very least, does the public have the right to know who's paying for these events?
I don't know how elections are governed in the USA, but in the UK, you always get to know who's putting the money up.
If we wanted to know who was ponying up the dough we wouldn't go through so much trouble making laws that obfuscate where money comes from for candidates. This system is for sale but if you have to ask about the price you probably can't afford it.
I'll say one thing for America - at least you guys don't have the House of Lords, the 2nd largest, unelected decision making chamber in the world!
It's a disgrace to British democracy, and most people buy their way in
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2016/03/11 18:09:27
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'll say one thing for America - at least you guys don't have the House of Lords, the 2nd largest, unelected decision making chamber in the world!
It's a disgrace to British democracy, and most people buy their way in
Wow. I did not realize it was still unelected.
2016/03/11 20:31:58
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Is it just me, or has Trump gone from funny to frighting in the last two weeks? If he wins then I truly worry for the world. If he loses its worrying enough for the US that he has managed to get so much support openly preaching such frightening views.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
2016/03/11 20:38:23
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Steve steveson wrote: Is it just me, or has Trump gone from funny to frighting in the last two weeks? If he wins then I truly worry for the world. If he loses its worrying enough for the US that he has managed to get so much support openly preaching such frightening views.
He's been frightening since day one.
I know he's leading now... but, don't worry, he won't win. Sanders or Clinton simply curb stomps Trump.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/11 20:38:44
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'll say one thing for America - at least you guys don't have the House of Lords, the 2nd largest, unelected decision making chamber in the world!
It's a disgrace to British democracy, and most people buy their way in
Wow. I did not realize it was still unelected.
It's supposed to be a balance against the lower house as the House of Lords are not beholden to popular vote and playing politics. It does work as the Commons can force stuff through without the House of Lords if need be, although it is more difficult. The House of Lords can create law, but if the commons disagree then it's going nowhere. It's not as undemocratic as people claim, and has worked for us for a long time. They are a good break preventing the tyranny of the majority if nothing else. I would call the electoral college system much more of a worry myself.
Steve steveson wrote: Is it just me, or has Trump gone from funny to frighting in the last two weeks? If he wins then I truly worry for the world. If he loses its worrying enough for the US that he has managed to get so much support openly preaching such frightening views.
He's been frightening since day one.
I know he's leading now... but, don't worry, he won't win. Sanders or Clinton simply curb stomps Trump.
From the outside he seemed more like a clown with no chance with a few redneck supporters we could look down on. Not any more...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/11 20:40:43
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
2016/03/11 20:57:03
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
From the outside he seemed more like a clown with no chance with a few redneck supporters we could look down on. Not any more...
If I'm not mistaken, many of Trump's supporters aren't rednecks. They're right-wingers from places other than the South who are unhappy with the Republican Party being essentially a Southern party.
He has support because he says things that both Republican and Democratic politicians have agreed aren't allowed to be said. Free trade agreements have not been good for most Americans. Nobody is really prepared to do too much about all the paperless immigrants because they're a great source of cheap labour without rights or protections that can be exploited and helps drive down wages in general. Sure, some politicians will sometimes drum up some hate to get elected but their corporate funders gain too much from the situation to end or solve it, however you think that should be done.
Trump or someone like him has been brewing for a while now. He might not get the nomination or win the election but there are plenty of people observing him and taking notes. The Republican Party itself is in a huge crisis and may not survive this. They have been cultivating racism and fury among the disenfranchised and the fearful whites who have seen a slow dismantling of white supremacy by liberalism, class consciousness and demographics and are now reaping what they have sown. Dog whistle tactics don't work when your rival will simply call the dog by its name.
2016/03/11 21:00:33
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'll say one thing for America - at least you guys don't have the House of Lords, the 2nd largest, unelected decision making chamber in the world!
It's a disgrace to British democracy, and most people buy their way in
Wow. I did not realize it was still unelected.
It's supposed to be a balance against the lower house as the House of Lords are not beholden to popular vote and playing politics. It does work as the Commons can force stuff through without the House of Lords if need be, although it is more difficult. The House of Lords can create law, but if the commons disagree then it's going nowhere. It's not as undemocratic as people claim, and has worked for us for a long time. They are a good break preventing the tyranny of the majority if nothing else. I would call the electoral college system much more of a worry myself.
The US Electoral college simply protects the mid-to-small states from the tyranny of the larger states.
From the outside he seemed more like a clown with no chance with a few redneck supporters we could look down on. Not any more...
If I'm not mistaken, many of Trump's supporters aren't rednecks. They're right-wingers from places other than the South who are unhappy with the Republican Party being essentially a Southern party.
He has support because he says things that both Republican and Democratic politicians have agreed aren't allowed to be said. Free trade agreements have not been good for most Americans. Nobody is really prepared to do too much about all the paperless immigrants because they're a great source of cheap labour without rights or protections that can be exploited and helps drive down wages in general. Sure, some politicians will sometimes drum up some hate to get elected but their corporate funders gain too much from the situation to end or solve it, however you think that should be done.
Trump or someone like him has been brewing for a while now. He might not get the nomination or win the election but there are plenty of people observing him and taking notes. The Republican Party itself is in a huge crisis and may not survive this. They have been cultivating racism and fury among the disenfranchised and the fearful whites who have seen a slow dismantling of white supremacy by liberalism, class consciousness and demographics and are now reaping what they have sown. Dog whistle tactics don't work when your rival will simply call the dog by its name.
It's mainly driven by the dissatisfaction of the current-state-politics. Or, in other words...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/11 21:02:11
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/03/11 21:11:09
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Steve steveson wrote: Is it just me, or has Trump gone from funny to frighting in the last two weeks? If he wins then I truly worry for the world. If he loses its worrying enough for the US that he has managed to get so much support openly preaching such frightening views.
I'd posit there's an exceedingly good chance he will win. If just the number of "underemployed" voted for him he'd stomp HRC like a bad habit.
Frightening views: -The Middle class has been screwed. (same view as HRC and Bernie). -Iraq was bad (same as HRC and Bernie) -Better healthcare (same as HRC but not enough for Bernie) -Illegal immigrants bad. Not sure why that is frightening. -Muslims bad. OK you got me on that one. I'm surprised its taken this long for politicians to rise up to prominence on this. Its no different than is happening in Europe. Frankly we've been more patient. Europe gets a few illegals in and their high mindedness goes out the door. Interesting that I don't see the UK letting in all the Calais immigrants.
From the outside he seemed more like a clown with no chance with a few redneck supporters we could look down on. Not any more...
He's drawing Reagan democrats as well. As his tide rises, more will hear him and he will gain more support. After all Bernie, is just the lamer, less behaired Democratic version.
All I can say is excellent. Finally Canada will be repaid for its many and varied evilz. Blame Canada!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/11 21:14:18
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2016/03/11 21:16:05
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Steve steveson wrote: Is it just me, or has Trump gone from funny to frighting in the last two weeks? If he wins then I truly worry for the world. If he loses its worrying enough for the US that he has managed to get so much support openly preaching such frightening views.
I'd posit there's an exceedingly good chance he will win. If just the number of "underemployed" voted for him he'd stomp HRC like a bad habit.
Frightening views:
-The Middle class has been screwed. (same view as HRC and Bernie).
-Iraq was bad (same as HRC and Bernie)
-Better healthcare (same as HRC but not enough for Bernie)
-Illegal immigrants bad. Not sure why that is frightening.
-Muslims bad. OK you got me on that one. I'm surprised its taken this long for politicians to rise up to prominence on this. Its no different than is happening in Europe. Frankly we've been more patient. Europe gets a few illegals in and their high mindedness goes out the door. Interesting that I don't see the UK letting in all the Calais immigrants.
All of Islam is bad, let's deliberately bomb civilians, giant feth you wall is a good idea, people who disagree with Drumpf and are assaulted deserve the violence, that haircut and makeup. Terrifiying.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2016/03/11 21:19:13
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Hillary Clinton seems to need some reminding about what happened in the early days of the AIDS epidemic.
The Democratic presidential candidate made polarizing, inaccurate -- not to mention offensive -- comments on Friday about the role that the Reagans, specifically Nancy Reagan, played in combatting the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s.
Speaking to MSNBC during the televised funeral for Reagan, who died on Sunday at the age of 94 from congestive heart failure, Clinton claimed that Nancy and her husband "started a national conversation" about the AIDS epidemic when "nobody would talk about it."
She said:
"It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s. And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan -- in particular Mrs. Reagan -- we started a national conversation. When before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it, and that too is something that I really appreciate with her very effective, low key advocacy but it penetrated the public conscious and people began to say, 'Hey, we have to do something about this too.'"
Yet, as Teen Vogue wrote this week, Reagan actually turned her back on thousands of people, many of whom identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT), as they died from the virus during her time as first lady.
Similarly, The Guardian reported last year that the former first lady withheld help from close friend Rock Hudson when he reached out to the White House while dying of complications related to AIDS in1985.
The Associated Press also points to a 2011 PBS documentary in which historian Adilla Black credited (with a caveat) Nancy Reagan's friendship with Hudson and attorney Roy Cohn, who also died from complications related to the disease, for inspiring her to "encourage her husband to seek more funding for AIDS research."
"I think she deserves credit for opening up the AIDS money," Black told PBS. "But I could never say that without saying they never would have waited this long if it was redheaded sixth graders."
"In the history of the AIDS epidemic, President Reagan's legacy is one of silence," said Michael Cover, former associate executive director for public affairs at Whitman-Walker Clinic, in 2003. "It is the silence of tens of thousands who died alone and unacknowledged, stigmatized by our government under his administration."
Even Chad Griffin, the President of The Human Rights Campaign, which endorsed Clinton for president earlier this year, spoke out on Twitter against her comments:
While I respect her advocacy on issues like stem cell & Parkinson's research, Nancy Reagan was, sadly, no hero in the fight against HIV/AIDS
So, Hillary, let's stick to the facts and avoid romanticizing the memory of the Reagan's role in fighting against HIV/AIDS, shall we?
Adding from lgbtqnation UPDATE: Hillary Clinton has apologized via the following statement:
While the Reagans were strong advocates for stem cell research and finding a cure for Alzheimer’s disease, I misspoke about their record on HIV and AIDS,” Clinton said in a statement. “For that, I’m sorry.”
The Reagans also lost a close friend to AIDS, actor Rock Hudson, who died two years before Reagan’s speech. And documents obtained by Buzzfeed News earlier this year revealed that Hudson appealed to Nancy Reagan for help obtaining treatment before his death. She declined to assist.
“Nancy and Ron Reagan were a functional team in the Presidency,” wrote AIDS activist Kenneth Bunch, aka Sister Vicious Power Hungry B—-, according to the Guardian. “They are both responsible for the death of thousands from HIV in the LGBT community due to their inaction in the 1980’s. So I understand the anger in the LGBT community toward Nancy. I feel that anger as well.”
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/11 22:26:19
I'm back!
2016/03/11 21:20:14
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Lets examine that: While I am not defending Trump these arguments don't really hold well.
All of Islam is bad,
***Well last night he said there was a problem. Is there not a problem? This was bound to occur when PC dictates one could even call jihadists terrorists.
let's deliberately bomb civilians,
***Dude we invented firebombing civilians. That means you too Canadian (RAF ring a bell). We're really good at it.
giant feth you wall is a good idea,
***It is a good idea. Just like Mexico secures its own Southern border. Getting Mexico to pay for it is not going to happen.
people who disagree with Drumpf and are assaulted deserve the violence,
***Protesting in the middle of a rally is going to have that occur.
that haircut and makeup. Terrifiying
***You got me on that one.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/11 21:39:51
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2016/03/11 21:39:08
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Frazzled wrote: Lets examine that: While I am not defending Trump these arguments don't really hold well.
All of Islam is bad,
***Well last night he said there was a problem. Is there not a problem?
Not with all of Islam. The vast (VAST) majority of islamic peoples are ordinary citizens like you and I.
let's deliberately bomb civilians,
***Dude we invented firebombing civilians. That means you too Canadian (RAF ring a bell). We're really good at it.
RCAF thankyouverymuch It was a bad idea then and it's an even worse idea now. Do YOU support such an action?
giant feth you wall is a good idea,
***It is a good idea. Just like Mexico secures its own Southern border. Getting Mexico to pay for it is not going to happen.
I disagree. Your economy would grind to a halt without the cheap disposable labour undocumented immigrants provide. In addition, I'm skeptical that the cost to build and maintain the wall would be less than the "cost" of undocumented immigrants anyway.
people who disagree with Drumpf and are assaulted deserve the violence,
***Protesting in the middle of a rally is going to have that occur.
Mob violence is A-OK with you now? IIRC, you were against that sort of stuff in the Ferguson threads.
that haircut and makeup. Terrifiying
***You got me on that one.
Huzzah! Consensus!
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2016/03/11 21:42:31
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
All of Islam is bad,
***Well last night he said there was a problem. Is there not a problem?
No problem with Islam (by which is actually meant the Middle East) can be separated from the material context of the groups of people we're talking about. That superpowers have used the region for proxy wars for decades is not something that can be simply ignored. The Islamic State would not exist without the collapse of Iraq, for example.
The rest of your post is similarly low-level devil's advocacy, just because you invented firebombing doesn't mean that it isn't a morally horrible suggestion that you kill anyone who might have a blood relation to anyone deemed a "terrorist", the bit about Islam was simply what stood out the most.
2016/03/11 21:47:40
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Former Hillary Clinton IT specialist Bryan Pagliano, a key witness in the email probe who struck an immunity deal with the Justice Department, has told the FBI a range of details about how her personal email system was set up, according to an intelligence source close to the case who called him a “devastating witness.”
The source said Pagliano told the FBI who had access to the former secretary of state’s system – as well as when – and what devices were used, amounting to a roadmap for investigators.
"Bryan Pagliano is a devastating witness and, as the webmaster, knows exactly who had access to [Clinton's] computer and devices at specific times. His importance to this case cannot be over-emphasized," the intelligence source said.
The source, who is not authorized to speak on the record due to the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation, said Pagliano has provided information allowing investigators to knit together the emails with other evidence, including images of Clinton on the road as secretary of state.
The cross-referencing of evidence could help investigators pinpoint potential gaps in the email record. "Don't forget all those photos with her using various devices and it is easy to track the whereabouts of her phone," the source said. "It is still boils down to a paper case. Did you email at this time from your home or elsewhere using this device? And here is a picture of you and your aides holding the devices."
A source close to Pagliano did not dispute the basic details of what was provided to the FBI, but said the highly skilled former State Department IT specialist had met with the bureau on a "limited basis" and was at best a "peripheral" player in the investigation.
At a Democratic debate Wednesday evening, Clinton brushed off the question when asked by the moderator whether she would withdraw from the presidential race if faced with criminal charges.
Univision’s Jorge Ramos asked, "If you get indicted, will you drop out?" Clinton responded, "My goodness. That is not going to happen. I'm not even answering that question."
She then added her now standard explanation that nothing she sent or received was marked classified at the time. While technically correct, the distinction appears misleading. The January 2009 classified information non-disclosure agreement signed by Clinton says she understood that classified information could be marked and unmarked, as well as verbal communications.
Classification is based on content, not markings.
The intelligence source said the FBI is "extremely focused" on the 22 “top secret” emails deemed too damaging to national security to publicly release under any circumstances, with agents reviewing those sent by Clinton as well her subordinates including former chief of staff Cheryl Mills.
"Mrs. Clinton sending them in this instance would show her intent much more than would receiving [them],” the source said. "Hillary Clinton was at a minimum grossly negligent in her handling of NDI [National Defense Information] materials merely by her insisting that she utilize a private server versus a [U.S. government] server. Remember, NDI does not have to be classified." According to the Congressional Research Service, NDI is broadly defined to include “information that they have reason to know could be used to harm the national security.”
It was emphasized to Fox News that Clinton’s deliberate “creation” and “control” of the private server used for her official government business is the subject of intense scrutiny. Pagliano knows key details as to how the private server was installed and maintained in her home.
The 22 “top secret” emails are not public, but in a Jan. 14 unclassified letter, first reported by Fox News, Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III notified Congress of the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies identifying "several dozen" additional classified emails -- including specific intelligence known as "special access programs" (SAP).
That indicates a level of classification beyond even "top secret," the label previously given to other emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate's handling of the government's closely held secrets.
Pagliano's lawyer offered no on-record comment for this report. Clinton recently told CBS, “I'm delighted that [Pagliano] has agreed to cooperate, as everyone else has. And I think that we will be moving toward a resolution of this.”
The FBI has not commented beyond the public statements of FBI Director James Comey, who recently told Congress: “I can assure you is that I am very close personally to that investigation to ensure that we have the resources we need, including people and technology, and that it’s done the way the FBI tries to do all of its work: independently, competently and promptly.”
The intelligence source described the morale of agents as "very good and nobody is moping around which is the first sign a big case is going south."
The reporter's source must be leaking this in order to keep the pressure on the DOJ AG Lorretta.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/03/11 21:50:22
