Switch Theme:

The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to Clinton is not Trump or Cruz, it's Sanders (which sits just fine with me).


This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/03/29 01:15:03


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 jasper76 wrote:
Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to Clinton is not Trump or Cruz, it's Sanders (which sits just fine with me).



Nice few edits...

Ya mean... like 'dis guy?
It’s Time for Hillary Clinton to Concede the Democratic Nomination to Bernie Sanders
With Bernie Sanders now slightly ahead of Clinton nationally in the latest Bloomberg poll, it’s time to reevaluate the meaning of pragmatism. Hillary Clinton might be ahead of Bernie Sanders in delegates, but Vermont’s Senator has a monopoly on political momentum. Sadly, his opponent has a monopoly on controversy, and will face FBI interviews in the near future. A Los Angeles Times article titled Clinton email probe enters new phase as FBI interviews loom highlights why Clinton’s campaign is stuck in political quicksand:

Federal prosecutors investigating the possible mishandling of classified materials on Hillary Clinton’s private email server have begun the process of setting up formal interviews with some of her longtime and closest aides, according to two people familiar with the probe, an indication that the inquiry is moving into its final phases.
Prosecutors also are expected to seek an interview with Clinton herself, though the timing remains unclear.
Yes, federal prosecutors will interview Hillary Clinton, in addition to her close associates.


At what point will establishment Democrats admit this fiasco is horrible for a general election?

When federal prosecutors are interviewing your candidate for president, even Donald Trump has a good chance at the White House.

Furthermore, former U.S. attorney general Michael Mukasey believes A Criminal Charge is Justified. Former Obama intelligence official Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn says that “If it were me, I would have been out the door and probably in jail.” Former NSA director Michael Hayden called Clinton’s email setup “stupid and dangerous.” Even Edward Snowden, the antithesis of America’s intelligence community in many ways, says it’s “ridiculous” to think Clinton’s emails were secure.

It’s time for Democrats to deal with reality, not just allegiance to a political icon, and rally around the only candidate not linked to an FBI investigation, and other controversies. With recent victories and future wins ahead, Bernie Sanders has all the political momentum heading towards Election Day. Most importantly, Bernie Sanders is the only leading candidate with positive favorability ratings in 2016.

Hillary Clinton has negative favorability ratings in ten national polls. When people forget about Trump’s rallies, and the billionaire pivots to his former identity as a Democrat (“I probably identify more as a Democrat”), then the Clinton campaign is in big trouble.

In terms of these favorability polls, Hillary Clinton holds negative ratings by an over 10-point margin in 9 of these polls.

The fact that in 9 out of 10 national polls, Clinton is viewed in a negative manner by an over 10-point margin should worry anyone fearing Trump, or a Republican White House.

Clinton is even viewed unfavorably by a 21-point margin in a March CBS/Times poll. Democrats can’t run a winning presidential campaign with the slogan, “We’ll save you from Trump with a person who’s less despised.”

Furthermore, the Clinton campaign won’t tell you that nationally, 64% of women find Hillary Clinton “not honest and trustworthy.” Young feminists are choosing Bernie Sanders over potentially the first female president and 61.4% of women ages 18-29 prefer Bernie Sanders over Clinton.

In terms of the future of the Democratic Party, NPR writes “A recent Quinnipiac poll found that Sanders bests Clinton among 18- to 44-year-olds, 78 percent to 21 percent.” Because of this energy and enthusiasm, Bernie Sanders has raised more money than Clinton in February.

When Jann S. Wenner of Rolling Stone endorsed Hillary Clinton, Mr. Wenner wrote “Clinton is far more likely to win the general election than Sanders.” First, this statement is undermined by the fact Real Clear Politics shows Bernie Sanders defeating Donald Trump by 17.5 points in an average of national polls. In contrast, the “far more likely to win” Hillary Clinton beats Trump by 11.2 points, and this margin was less than 4 points several months ago, before Trump’s violent rallies.

Bernie Sanders hasn’t only “destroyed“ Donald Trump by a wider margin since last December, he’s performed better against Trump in national polls since last October. I wrote a piece on October 21, 2015 titled Bernie Sanders Defeats Trump By a Wider Margin Than Clinton in a General Election. From last October until today, Bernie Sanders has consistently outperformed Clinton in matchups against Donald Trump.

Also, nothing in the Rolling Stone piece endorsing Clinton mentions the ongoing FBI investigation. The Christian Science Monitor clearly states the nature of the FBI’s investigation, stating “The FBI is indeed conducting a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information on the private email server Clinton used for State Department communications.”

Yes, Hillary supporters, “The FBI is indeed conducting a criminal investigation.”

Like The Christian Science Monitor, The Washington Post has clearly stated the nature of the FBI’s investigation and in early March wrote that “The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.”

You’ve read the words correctly, and the FBI investigation is a “criminal investigation.”

Say it again, “criminal investigation.”

Even the best defense of Clinton’s email fiasco, a piece by Ruth Marcus titled Why Hillary Clinton is unlikely to be indicted over her private email server, states “Lucky for her, political idiocy is not criminal.”

This too, makes for an interesting campaign slogan.

However, “political idiocy” is indeed criminal, when there’s intent and motive involved in the idiotic behavior. The example given my Duke Law Journal regarding intent and motive states “As far as the criminal law is concerned, Donny intended and attempted to kill a human being; his motive for doing so is simply not relevant.”

Hillary Clinton might have been motivated by convenience, but she intended to circumvent government networks, and this intentional act resulted in 22 “Top Secret” emails on a private server.

Furthermore, everyone knows that convenience wasn’t the only reason Clinton had the private server. In addition, the FBI isn’t spending over one year investigating with 100 agents to give Hillary Clinton a parking ticket.

I explain in this YouTube segment why Hillary Clinton will likely face FBI indictments. I also state in a recent CNN International appearance with John Vause that Clinton indeed faces the possibility of indictment from the FBI investigation.

In addition to the political momentum favoring Bernie Sanders, Vermont’s Senator doesn’t have to worry about a cover-up. Like Watergate, Hillary Clinton’s political future rests upon the actions of others. A recent Reuters article describes the precarious state of Clinton’s campaign in a piece titled Role of tech who set up Clinton’s server unknown to bosses at State:

Wisecarver and Swart, who had worked in the department for decades, were soon swapping emails expressing confusion and surprise that a political appointee, a so-called Schedule C employee who is more commonly hired to work in the secretary of state’s offices, should be joining the IT department’s ranks...
The department told Reuters that Pagliano and Kennedy had little contact, and that Kennedy was unaware of the server or his subordinate’s role in running it. Nor did Wisecarver, Pagliano’s day-to-day boss, or Swart know, according to the former colleague, who said the IT office should have been informed.
Like Watergate, it’s the cover-up that dooms politicians, not necessarily the original act linked to unethical behavior.


Bryan Pagliano is just one of many people involved with the FBI’s investigation. Future indictments are likely, considering the scope of the FBI’s investigation and the bewilderment of top intelligence officials. With recent wins, and future wins on the horizon, political momentum is clearly on the side of Vermont’s Senator. It’s not pragmatic or realistic to champion Clinton, knowing that Bernie Sanders defeats Trump by a wider margin, without an FBI investigation, and with the highest favorability ratings of any candidate in 2016. I explain in another interview on CNN International with John Vause that voters should choose Bernie Sanders, if indeed they fear Donald Trump.

Remember, Trump can’t ask Bernie Sanders for his Goldman Sachs speech transcripts during a televised debate. Clinton’s campaign can’t even stand being pointed at, so just imagine Trump explaining why he donated to Clinton’s Senate campaigns during a debate. Bernie is by far the superior candidate, and already matches up better against GOP rivals; without the myriad of issues faced by Clinton. For the country, and especially the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton should concede the nomination to Bernie Sanders.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




I don't buy the line that Sanders would be a whole lot better than Clinton. In truth, the GOP field has widdled down to the saddest potential nominees I may have ever seen come out (I can think of weaker Democrat fields). Trump has imploded any support he may have garnered from minorities and self-respecting women, and Cruz never had a chance to begin with due to his outmoded religio-political worldview. I just don't see it in the cards barring a highly improbable Independent Sanders run.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/29 01:31:27


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 CptJake wrote:
I'm not forgetting anything. You're taking my comment out of context, my post had nothing to do with Trump, supporting him or against him.


jasper76 said the GOP was responsible for Trump, whembly commented on that, I commented on whembly's post, you replied to that and then I responded to your comment.

And then you complained that my response was out of context because you weren't talking about Trump, when the context for the conversation was Trump. You actually took your own comment out of context. Which is amazing.

It was answering a comment stating the Tea Party was basically in control of the Republican Party. And it is not. The fact that even now Party Big Wigs are not behind Cruz solidifies my point.


There's a difference between absolute control, and influence way in excess of actual numbers. The Tea Party most definitely have the latter, but are complaining they don't have the former. Boo hoo for them.

Meanwhile there's a whole block of Republican voters, typically of little or no coherent ideology, who are flocking to Trump because the previous ideologies of movement conservatism and the Tea Party (which is basically movement conservatism turned to 11), were so deeply lacking for them. That's why the GOP, through its various ideological movements, are responsible for what's happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
DutchWinsAll wrote:
But yet, as a raw number, there are more economically depressed Whites that aren't putting up these same numbers. And knowing the murder victim doesn't change the fact it could be gang or drug related.


You shouldn't look just at present economic circumstances, but long term circumstances. Unemployment is a strong predictor of criminal behaviour, but inter-generational unemployment is a much stronger predictor.

And while it isn't going to be fun, just look at what's happening now as economic decline is starting to show as an inter-generational factor in rural towns. It's been interesting to note that all the nonsense rhetoric that followed the collapse of jobs in urban areas ('culture problem') are now being repeated about rural areas of the US. Crime rates will follow.

I was asking why the homicide rates for Black males are so much higher? A couple of people have said "economics" and thats part of it, but hardly the whole answer. Nor is my answer of strictly drugs and gangs. Gun ownership rates aren't terribly far off between the races. So what is it if not a combination of the first three?


There is certainly a combination of factors. I don't think anyone is dismissing drugs, but pointing out it isn't a major driver like the other two, and is itself largely a product of economic circumstances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 shasolenzabi wrote:
He needed around 58%-60% he has crushed that estimate so far. Hawaii looks to be another such win.


Sanders had a good week, but he's been strong in caucuses throughout the campaign. His problem is there's only 2 caucuses left now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
So while I personally would center my argument on living space, education and economics... I suppose you could also extend this argument a little bit to popular culture. By this I mean that there is a very large portion of the "Hip Hop World" (I use this term specifically to encompass music, rappers themselves, video channels like World Star, etc.) glorifies a particular type of person and a particular lifestyle. For many black youth, this is basically the only musical influence they have from birth till well after they reach 18. However, I cannot, and will not blame exclusively the musical apparatus, because that would be as stupid as blaming GTA games or "Metal" for why school shooters do their acts: there isn't a single bogeyman present to blame, it's a host of ingredients mixing in the right way.


I think it's probably also a case of art imitating life. "Hip Hop Culture" is likely reflecting culture as it responds to economic circumstances, more than shaping it. This isn't to say that culture doesn't have an impact, but I'd say it more reinforces economic realities, than creates issues by itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Brother Armiger wrote:
These particular individuals, the 'good whites' always remove the agency of black and hispanic people. Instead of holding them to the same standards that they'd hold themselves or any other human being with the same situation- they've treated them like helpless, untrained, wild animals. This is beyond insulting.


Holy crap that was a lot of text just to say 'socialism and do-gooders are responsible'. I think your political views will give you a shot at a long and lucrative career on talkback radio, if you work on your brevity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote:
The Democratic Party created superdelegates to make sure the Party's favored candidate won. They exist to give the Party more control over the process and to offset grass roots challengers from outside the Party's influence. The superdelegates exist to help candidates like Hillary Clinton against grass roots candidates like Obama and Sanders.


Obama won the superdelegate count in 2008. The system isn't meant to shut out the smaller candidates, it isn't really 'meant' to do anything. It's people with powerful inside positions in politics making sure they continue to have power to wield for favours.

They were used to make sure Mondale won the nomination in 1984 and since then the number of Democratic Party leaders to be granted superdelegate status has only increased.


Being used to make sure the guy who won the most votes secures the nomination is uh... not exactly the complaint I'd lead with when complaining about super-delegates. I mean, I don't like super-delegates but a bad argument is a bad argument.

You should probably stick with George McGovern, who lost the popular vote but romped in the delegates, because he was the first to figure out how the revised primary system worked. And he got pantsed in the general, which shows why going against the popular vote is a really bad idea.

This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/03/29 03:42:28


“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. 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Et In Arcadia Ego





Canterbury

Arizona is sounding like a bit of a mess eh ?

http://usuncut.com/politics/arizona-election-fraud-hearing-chaos/

http://heavy.com/news/2016/03/arizona-election-voter-fraud-bernie-sanders-azelectionfraud-provisional-ballot-maricopa-registration-long-lines/

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,
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 jasper76 wrote:
No one cares if the President is incompetent with IT. That's why IT nerds have jobs.

Wake me up if the FBI charges her with anything.

Someone said it before, and it's worth saying again. The only people who care about Clinton's unwise server arrangement are ones who hate her to begin with. I'd like to see her go to jail just so I don't have to read about this most boring of scandals over and over again. And if she was in prison, I'd still vote for her over Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Those dudes pretty much just suck.


I agree, however this has substantially eroded her "trustworthiness" and "likeability" to the level of...Trump.
What if the FBI/DOJ indicts her?
What is they don't and the FBI agents in charge of the investigation resign in protest?

The Democrats are treading dangerous ground here, putting all their eggs into the Clinton basket.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/29 13:02:50


-"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!
 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa



The only reason I wouldn't presume intentional organized election fraud from what was described in the latter article is that if I were to pick the state that is least likely to do anything to benefit Hillary Clinton, Arizona would be a strong, strong contender for #1.

My gut feeling is incompetence. When you're over 700 delegates ahead of the other guy, it seems unlikely to organized a giant super visible conspiracy in s atate where the population is extremely hostile to you for the benefit of an extra 15 delegates. It's like racing out of your spacesuit on Venus because you saw a quarter; pretty bad ROI.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/29 13:27:58


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




 Frazzled wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
No one cares if the President is incompetent with IT. That's why IT nerds have jobs.

Wake me up if the FBI charges her with anything.

Someone said it before, and it's worth saying again. The only people who care about Clinton's unwise server arrangement are ones who hate her to begin with. I'd like to see her go to jail just so I don't have to read about this most boring of scandals over and over again. And if she was in prison, I'd still vote for her over Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Those dudes pretty much just suck.


I agree, however this has substantially eroded her "trustworthiness" and "likeability" to the level of...Trump.
What if the FBI/DOJ indicts her?
What is they don't and the FBI agents in charge of the investigation resign in protest?

The Democrats are treading dangerous ground here, putting all their eggs into the Clinton basket.


Then instead of President Clinton, we get President Sanders, which is just fine by me.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 jasper76 wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
No one cares if the President is incompetent with IT. That's why IT nerds have jobs.

Wake me up if the FBI charges her with anything.

Someone said it before, and it's worth saying again. The only people who care about Clinton's unwise server arrangement are ones who hate her to begin with. I'd like to see her go to jail just so I don't have to read about this most boring of scandals over and over again. And if she was in prison, I'd still vote for her over Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Those dudes pretty much just suck.


I agree, however this has substantially eroded her "trustworthiness" and "likeability" to the level of...Trump.
What if the FBI/DOJ indicts her?
What is they don't and the FBI agents in charge of the investigation resign in protest?

The Democrats are treading dangerous ground here, putting all their eggs into the Clinton basket.


Then instead of President Clinton, we get President Sanders, which is just fine by me.


Mmm...you think Sanders would win do you?

-"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!
 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




Yeah I really do.

Scenario 1 is Trump, who has been begging minorities to vote against him in droves. He has also alienated self-respecting women. His domestic policies are a joke, and now we discover his foreign policy is a joke as well, as he intends to proliferate nuclear weapons and abandon our allies.

Scenario 2 is Cruz, and let's just stop there. He's Ted Cruz.

Scenario 3 is the GOP overriding the will of their voters through a contested convention, and whatever candidate might emerge from that process would be viewed as an illegitimate nominee by millions of voters across the political spectrum.

I don't see the GOP winning control of the White House in any scenario above. Who the Democratic nominee ends up being seems pretty immaterial.
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 jasper76 wrote:
Yeah I really do.

Scenario 1 is Trump, who has been begging minorities to vote against him in droves. He has also alienated self-respecting women. His domestic policies are a joke, and now we discover his foreign policy is a joke as well, as he intends to proliferate nuclear weapons and abandon our allies.

Scenario 2 is Cruz, and let's just stop there. He's Ted Cruz.

Scenario 3 is the GOP overriding the will of their voters through a contested convention, and whatever candidate might emerge from that process would be viewed as an illegitimate nominee by millions of voters across the political spectrum.

I don't see the GOP winning control of the White House in any scenario above. Who the Democratic nominee ends up being seems pretty immaterial.


Indeed. From when that clown car first pulled up, it felt like they were rolling dice that had a 1 on each side. Even the eminently defeatable Hillary Clinton suddenly became nearly a shoo-in.


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

I would not be smug if I were a Hillary supporter. She's a lethally weak candidate, against an opponent who threw out the playbook. I'd also note the rise of "rightist" movements has occurred all across Europe, driven by many of the same considerations.

Trump/Hillary are the fault of the existing parties, for not addressing the real concerns of millions of Americans, first in the inner cities, and now in flyover country. The fact these two...unique individuals are potentially the representatives of either party shows in brilliant 70mm Technicolor that the system is broken.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/29 14:07:25


-"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!
 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




Clinton is par for the course as far as Democrat nominees and politicians go. Slightly left of center domestically, and right of center on foreign policy. I don't know why you'd think Clinton was some kind of drastic departure from the norm of Democratic politics. We've been eating this meal for decades. Care to expand on what you mean?
   
Made in us
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





Northern IA

I support Sanders' ideas and would vote for him in the general...but would not vote for Clinton if she were in the feneral.

I am an independent voter...left leaning on some stuff..right leaning on other stuff.

I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.

Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




 TheMeanDM wrote:
I support Sanders' ideas and would vote for him in the general...but would not vote for Clinton if she were in the feneral.

I am an independent voter...left leaning on some stuff..right leaning on other stuff.


Just curious (don't feel compelled to provide an answer if you don't want to), if you didn't vote for Clinton in the general, does that mean you would vote for Trump?
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 jasper76 wrote:
Clinton is par for the course as far as Democrat nominees and politicians go. Slightly left of center domestically, and right of center on foreign policy. I don't know why you'd think Clinton was some kind of drastic departure from the norm of Democratic politics. We've been eating this meal for decades.


Exactly. The same positions. This is a change election. They voted for Obama for that. They want it now.
She can't campaign for squat. If she could she would have run through Sanders like the Missouri through a tugboat.
She can't keep it together on what her plans are, but the ones we know about: Libya, Syria were horrifically bad.
No one trusts her and thats a serious weakness.

-"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!
 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




 Frazzled wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
Clinton is par for the course as far as Democrat nominees and politicians go. Slightly left of center domestically, and right of center on foreign policy. I don't know why you'd think Clinton was some kind of drastic departure from the norm of Democratic politics. We've been eating this meal for decades.


Exactly. The same positions. This is a change election. They voted for Obama for that. They want it now.
She can't campaign for squat. If she could she would have run through Sanders like the Missouri through a tugboat.
She can't keep it together on what her plans are, but the ones we know about: Libya, Syria were horrifically bad.
No one trusts her and thats a serious weakness.


No one trusts Trump or Cruz either so I see that as a wash.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote:
The Democratic Party created superdelegates to make sure the Party's favored candidate won. They exist to give the Party more control over the process and to offset grass roots challengers from outside the Party's influence. The superdelegates exist to help candidates like Hillary Clinton against grass roots candidates like Obama and Sanders.


Obama won the superdelegate count in 2008. The system isn't meant to shut out the smaller candidates, it isn't really 'meant' to do anything. It's people with powerful inside positions in politics making sure they continue to have power to wield for favours.

They were used to make sure Mondale won the nomination in 1984 and since then the number of Democratic Party leaders to be granted superdelegate status has only increased.


Being used to make sure the guy who won the most votes secures the nomination is uh... not exactly the complaint I'd lead with when complaining about super-delegates. I mean, I don't like super-delegates but a bad argument is a bad argument.

You should probably stick with George McGovern, who lost the popular vote but romped in the delegates, because he was the first to figure out how the revised primary system worked. And he got pantsed in the general, which shows why going against the popular vote is a really bad idea.


Here's some good information on the 2008 Democratic Primary from ABC news:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2008/05/follow-the-line.html

http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/Delegatecharts2.ppt

Looking at the delegate charts we see that the popular vote was close throughout, that Hillary Clinton had a large lead in super delegates for the majority of the primary process but that changed at the very end after Obama won a commanding lead in the pledged delegate count. The superdelegates were choosing Hillary right up until the point when Obama won enough pledged delegates to ensure his victory. If Hillary had done better in the later primary contests she likely would have kept the superdelegates and won the nomination. The superdelegates clearly favored Hillary and kept supporting her right up until Obama's win became inevitable and then switched over.

If the Democratic Party wanted to ensure that the candidate that won the popular vote won the nomination they could have easily amended the rules to say just that. Instead of setting up the rule to say that whichever candidate won a majority or the largest plurality of votes wins the nomination the Democratic Party created superdelegates who aren't tethered to the popular vote at all and are made up exclusively of Party members and officials.

Geraldine Ferraro's Op Ed piece in the NYT from 2008 also makes it pretty clear that superdelegates are the mechanism through which the Party exerts control over the will of the voters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25ferraro.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp
Today, with the possibility that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will end up with about the same number of delegates after all 50 states have held their primaries and caucuses, the pundits and many others are saying that superdelegates should not decide who the nominee will be. That decision, they say, should rest with the rank-and-file Democrats who went to the polls and voted.

But the superdelegates were created to lead, not to follow. They were, and are, expected to determine what is best for our party and best for the country. I would hope that is why many superdelegates have already chosen a candidate to support.

Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated.

If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. That’s hardly a grassroots mandate.

More important, although many states like New York have closed primaries in which only enrolled Democrats are allowed to vote, in many other states Republicans and independents can make the difference by voting in Democratic primaries or caucuses.

In the Democratic primary in South Carolina, tens of thousands of Republicans and independents no doubt voted, many of them for Mr. Obama. The same rules prevail at the Iowa caucuses, in which Mr. Obama also triumphed.

He won his delegates fair and square, but those delegates represent the wishes not only of grassroots Democrats, but also Republicans and independents. If rank-and-file Democrats should decide who the party’s nominee is, each state should pass a rule allowing only people who have been registered in the Democratic Party for a given time — not nonmembers or day-of registrants — to vote for the party’s nominee.


I am ambivalent towards superdelegates. The political parties control the nominations and the methods by which nominees are chosen. I've been a registered Independent since I've been old enough to vote so I've never been a member of either party.

I think the superdelegates will play a deciding role in the Democratic primary this year because Hillary Clinton has spend decades establishing a base of power and influence within the party whereas Bernie Sanders has spent his time in Congress as an Independent (even though he caucuses with the Democrats on most issues). Superdelegates are party insiders, Clinton is a party insider, Sanders isn't so the advantage goes towards Clinton.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Agreed, however that takes away a potential strength of hers.

-"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!
 
   
Made in us
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





Northern IA

 jasper76 wrote:
 TheMeanDM wrote:
I support Sanders' ideas and would vote for him in the general...but would not vote for Clinton if she were in the feneral.

I am an independent voter...left leaning on some stuff..right leaning on other stuff.


Just curious (don't feel compelled to provide an answer if you don't want to), if you didn't vote for Clinton in the general, does that mean you would vote for Trump?


Heavens no!

Undecided if I will write in Sanders or go with Jill Stein as I did in 2012

I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.

Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




 Frazzled wrote:
Agreed, however that takes away a potential strength of hers.


Really, all she might have to do to mitigate the untrustworthiness/unlikeability issue is to run with Cory Booker. People love Cory Booker, and I think ots for good reason. I started looking up speeches and interviews with this guy after people started mentioning him as a potential VP. He's a better speaker than even Obama was IMO, and I'd think he would greatly increase the "likability" deficit Clinton suffers from. Just a thought anyways.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 TheMeanDM wrote:
 jasper76 wrote:
 TheMeanDM wrote:
I support Sanders' ideas and would vote for him in the general...but would not vote for Clinton if she were in the feneral.

I am an independent voter...left leaning on some stuff..right leaning on other stuff.


Just curious (don't feel compelled to provide an answer if you don't want to), if you didn't vote for Clinton in the general, does that mean you would vote for Trump?


Heavens no!

Undecided if I will write in Sanders or go with Jill Stein as I did in 2012


Gotcha. I had to look up Jill Stein. I never looked to hard into the Green Party. Now you've peaked my curiosity.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/03/29 14:53:22


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 jasper76 wrote:
No one cares if the President is incompetent with IT. That's why IT nerds have jobs.

Wake me up if the FBI charges her with anything.

Someone said it before, and it's worth saying again. The only people who care about Clinton's unwise server arrangement are ones who hate her to begin with. I'd like to see her go to jail just so I don't have to read about this most boring of scandals over and over again. And if she was in prison, I'd still vote for her over Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Those dudes pretty much just suck.

Uh huh...

If you buy that Clinton email server arrangement was "unwise" in the sense that her communication may have been exposed, but you don't care because... I don't know... #YOLO?

If you at least acknowledge that... then, it's reasonable to expect that other foreign government has access to not only classified information during here SoS tenure, but any other less flattering information such as her dealings with her Clinton Foundation, and apparent "pay-to-play" schemes.

As President, she'd be exposed to god knows what BLACKMAIL materials our adversaries may have on her...

But, go ahead and advocate this woman to manage the nuclear football...

Here's a nice summary by the
Spoiler:
WashingtonPost:
How Clinton’s email scandal took root

Hillary Clinton’s email problems began in her first days as secretary of state. She insisted on using her personal BlackBerry for all her email communications, but she wasn’t allowed to take the device into her seventh-floor suite of offices, a secure space known as Mahogany Row.

For Clinton, this was frustrating. As a political heavyweight and chief of the nation’s diplomatic corps, she needed to manage a torrent of email to stay connected to colleagues, friends and supporters. She hated having to put her BlackBerry into a lockbox before going into her own office.

Her aides and senior officials pushed to find a way to enable her to use the device in the secure area. But their efforts unsettled the diplomatic security bureau, which was worried that foreign intelligence services could hack her BlackBerry and transform it into a listening device.

On Feb. 17, 2009, less than a month into Clinton’s tenure, the issue came to a head. Department security, intelligence and technology specialists, along with five officials from the National Security Agency, gathered in a Mahogany Row conference room. They explained the risks to Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff, while also seeking “mitigation options” that would accommodate Clinton’s wishes.

“The issue here is one of personal comfort,” one of the participants in that meeting, Donald Reid, the department’s senior coordinator for security infrastructure, wrote afterward in an email that described Clinton’s inner circle of advisers as “dedicated [BlackBerry] addicts.”

Clinton used her BlackBerry as the group continued looking for a solution. But unknown to diplomatic security and technology officials at the department, there was another looming communications vulnerability: Clinton’s Black­Berry was digitally tethered to a private email server in the basement of her family home, some 260 miles to the north in Chappaqua, N.Y., documents and interviews show.

Those officials took no steps to protect the server against intruders and spies, because they apparently were not told about it.

The vulnerability of Clinton’s basement server is one of the key unanswered questions at the heart of a scandal that has dogged her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Since Clinton’s private email account was brought to light a year ago in a New York Times report — followed by an Associated Press report revealing the existence of the server — the matter has been a source of nonstop national news. Private groups have filed lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act. Investigations were begun by congressional committees and inspector general’s offices in the State Department and the U.S. Intelligence Community, which referred the case to the FBI in July for “counterintelligence purposes” after determining that the server carried classified material.

The FBI is now trying to determine whether a crime was committed in the handling of that classified material. It is also examining whether the server was hacked.

One hundred forty-seven FBI agents have been deployed to run down leads, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. The FBI has accelerated the investigation because officials want to avoid the possibility of announcing any action too close to the election.

The Washington Post reviewed hundreds of documents and interviewed more than a dozen knowledgeable government officials to understand the decisions and the implications of Clinton’s actions. The resulting scandal revolves around questions about classified information, the preservation of government records and the security of her email communication.

From the earliest days, Clinton aides and senior officials focused intently on accommodating the secretary’s desire to use her private email account, documents and interviews show.

Throughout, they paid insufficient attention to laws and regulations governing the handling of classified material and the preservation of government records, interviews and documents show. They also neglected repeated warnings about the security of the BlackBerry while Clinton and her closest aides took obvious security risks in using the basement server.

Senior officials who helped Clinton with her BlackBerry claim they did not know details of the basement server, the State Department said, even though they received emails from her private account. One email written by a senior official mentioned the server.

The scandal has pitted those who say Clinton was innocently trying to find the easiest way to communicate against those who say she placed herself above the law in a quest for control of her records. She and her campaign have been accused of confusing matters with contradictory and evolving statements that minimized the consequences of her actions.

Clinton, 68, declined to be interviewed. She has said repeatedly that her use of the private server was benign and that there is no evidence of any intrusion.

In a news conference last March, she said: “I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.”

During a Democratic debate on March 9, she acknowledged using poor judgment but maintained she was permitted to use her own server: “It wasn’t the best choice. I made a mistake. It was not prohibited. It was not in any way dis­allowed.”

The unfolding story of Clinton’s basement server has outraged advocates of government transparency and mystified political supporters and adversaries alike. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., who is presiding over one of the FOIA lawsuits, has expressed puzzlement over the affair. He noted that Clinton put the State Department in the position of having to ask her to return thousands of government records — her work email.

“Am I missing something?” Sullivan asked during a Feb. 23 hearing. “How in the world could this happen?”

Hillary Clinton began preparing to use the private basement server after President Obama picked her to be his secretary of state in November 2008. The system was already in place. It had been set up for former president Bill Clinton, who used it for personal and Clinton Foundation business.

On Jan. 13, 2009, a longtime aide to Bill Clinton registered a private email domain for Hillary Clinton, clintonemail.com, that would allow her to send and receive email through the server.

Eight days later, she was sworn in as secretary of state. Among the multitude of challenges she faced was how to integrate email into her State Department routines. Because Clinton did not use desktop computers, she relied on her personal BlackBerry, which she had started using three years earlier.

For years, employees across the government had used official and private email accounts.

The new president was making broad promises about government transparency that had a bearing on Clinton’s communication choices. In memos to his agency chiefs, Obama said his administration would promote accountability through the disclosure of a wide array of information, one part of a “profound national commitment to ensuring an open government.” That included work emails.

One year earlier, during her own presidential campaign, Clinton had said that if elected, “we will adopt a presumption of openness and Freedom of Information Act requests and urge agencies to release information quickly.”

But in those first few days, Clinton’s senior advisers were already taking steps that would help her circumvent those high-flown words, according to a chain of internal State Department emails released to Judicial Watch, a conservative nonprofit organization suing the government over Clinton’s emails.

Leading that effort was Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff. She was joined by Clinton adviser Huma Abedin, Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy and Lewis Lukens, a senior career official who served as Clinton’s logistics chief. Their focus was on accommodating Clinton.

Mills wondered whether the department could get her an encrypted device like the one from the NSA that Obama used.

“If so, how can we get her one?” Mills wrote the group on Saturday evening, Jan. 24.

Lukens responded that same evening, saying he could help set up “a stand alone PC in the Secretary’s office, connected to the internet (but not through our system) to enable her to check her emails from her desk.”

Kennedy wrote that a “stand-alone separate network PC” was a “great idea.”

Abedin and Mills declined to comment for this article, according to Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon. Lukens also declined to comment, according to the State Department.

As undersecretary for management, Kennedy occupies a central role in Clinton’s email saga. The department acknowledged that Kennedy, as part of his normal duties, helped Clinton with her BlackBerry. But in a statement, the department said: “Under Secretary Kennedy maintains that he was unaware of the email server. Completely separate from that issue, Under Secretary Kennedy was aware that at the beginning of her tenure, Secretary Clinton’s staff was interested in setting up a computer at the Department so she could email her family during the work day.

“As we have previously made clear — no such computer was ever set up. Furthermore, Under Secretary Kennedy had very little insight into Secretary Clinton’s email practices including how ­frequently or infrequently then-Secretary Clinton used email.”

As it happened, Clinton would never have a government BlackBerry, personal computer or email account. A request for a secure device from the NSA was rebuffed at the outset: “The current state of the art is not too user friendly, has no infrastructure at State, and is very expensive,” Reid, the security official, wrote in an email on Feb. 13, adding that “each time we asked the question ‘What was the solution for POTUS?’ we were politely told to shut up and color.”

Clinton would continue to use her BlackBerry for virtually all of her government communication, but not on Mahogany Row.


Her first known BlackBerry communication through the basement server came on Jan. 28, 2009, when Clinton exchanged notes with Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, then chief of the U.S. Central Command, according to a State Department spokeswoman. It has not been released.

Few knew the details behind the new clintonemail.com address. But news about her choice to use her own BlackBerry spread quickly among the department’s diplomatic security and “intelligence countermeasures” specialists.

Their fears focused on the seventh floor, which a decade earlier had been the target of Russian spies who managed to plant a listening device inside a decorative chair-rail molding not far from Mahogany Row. In more recent years, in a series of widely publicized cyberattacks, hackers breached computers at the department along with those at other federal agencies and several major corporations.

The State Department security officials were distressed about the possibility that Clinton’s BlackBerry could be compromised and used for eavesdropping, documents and interviews show.

After the meeting on Feb. 17 with Mills, security officials in the department crafted a memo about the risks. And among themselves, they expressed concern that other department employees would follow the “bad example” and seek to use insecure BlackBerrys themselves, emails show.

As they worked on the memo, they were aware of a speech delivered by Joel F. Brenner, then chief of counterintelligence at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, on Feb. 24 at a hotel in Vienna, Va., a State Department document shows. Brenner urged his audience to consider what could have happened to them during a visit to the recent Beijing Olympics.

“Your phone or BlackBerry could have been tagged, tracked, monitored and exploited between your disembarking the airplane and reaching the taxi stand at the airport,” Brenner said. “And when you emailed back home, some or all of the malware may have migrated to your home server. This is not hypothetical.”

At the time, Clinton had just returned from an official trip that took her to China and elsewhere in Asia. She was embarking on another foray to the Middle East and Europe. She took her BlackBerry with her.

In early March, Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Eric Boswell delivered a memo with the subject line “Use of Blackberries in Mahogany Row.”

“Our review reaffirms our belief that the vulnerabilities and risks associated with the use of Blackberries in the Mahogany Row [redacted] considerably outweigh the convenience their use can add,” the memo said.

He emphasized: “Any unclassified Blackberry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving e-mails, and exploiting calendars.”

Nine days later, Clinton told Boswell that she had read his memo and “gets it,” according to an email sent by a senior diplomatic security official. “Her attention was drawn to the sentence that indicates (Diplomatic Security) have intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia,” the email said.

But Clinton kept using her private BlackBerry — and the basement server.

The server was nothing remarkable, the kind of system often used by small businesses, according to people familiar with its configuration at the end of her tenure. It consisted of two off-the-shelf server computers. Both were equipped with antivirus software. They were linked by cable to a local Internet service provider. A firewall was used as protection against hackers.

Few could have known it, but the email system operated in those first two months without the standard encryption generally used on the Internet to protect communication, according to an independent analysis that Venafi Inc., a cybersecurity firm that specializes in the encryption process, took upon itself to publish on its website after the scandal broke.

Not until March 29, 2009 — two months after Clinton began using it — did the server receive a “digital certificate” that protected communication over the Internet through encryption, according to Venafi’s analysis.

It is unknown whether the system had some other way to encrypt the email traffic at the time. Without encryption — a process that scrambles communication for anyone without the correct key — email, attachments and passwords are transmitted in plain text.

“That means that anyone could have accessed it. Anyone,” Kevin Bocek, vice president of threat intelligence at Venafi, told The Post.

The system had other features that made it vulnerable to talented hackers, including a software program that enabled users to log on directly from the World Wide Web.

Four computer-security specialists interviewed by The Post said that such a system could be made reasonably secure but that it would need constant monitoring by people trained to look for irregularities in the server’s logs.

“For data of this sensitivity . . . we would need at a minimum a small team to do monitoring and hardening,” said Jason Fossen, a computer-security specialist at the SANS Institute, which provides cybersecurity training around the world.

The man Clinton has said maintained and monitored her server was Bryan Pagliano, who had worked as the technology chief for her political action committee and her presidential campaign. It is not clear whether he had any help. Pagliano had also provided computer services to the Clinton family. In 2008, he received more than $5,000 for that work, according to financial disclosure statements he filed with the government.

In May 2009, with Kennedy’s help, Pagliano landed a job as a political employee in the State Department’s IT division, documents and interviews show. It was an unusual arrangement.

At the same time, Pagliano apparently agreed to maintain the basement server. Officials in the IT division have told investigators they could not recall previously hiring a political appointee. Three of Pagliano’s supervisors also told investigators they had no idea that Clinton used the basement server or that Pagliano was moonlighting on it.

Through an attorney, Pagliano declined a request from The Post for an interview. He also refused a request from the Senate Judiciary and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committees to discuss his role. On Sept. 1, 2015, his attorney told the committees that he would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights if any attempt was made to compel his testimony. He was later given immunity by the Justice Department in exchange for his cooperation, according to articles in the New York Times and The Post.

In a statement, Clinton’s campaign said the server was protected but declined to provide technical details. Clinton officials have said that server logs given to authorities show no signs of hacking.

“The security and integrity of her family’s electronic communications was taken seriously from the onset when it was first set up for President Clinton’s team,” the statement said. “Suffice it to say, robust protections were put in place and additional upgrades and techniques employed over time as they became available, including consulting and employing third party experts.”

The statement added that “there is no evidence there was ever a breach.”

The number of emails moving through the basement system increased quickly as Hillary Clinton dove into the endless details of her globetrotting job. There were 62,320 in all, an average of 296 a week, nearly 1,300 a month, according to numbers Clinton later reported to the State Department. About half of them were work-related.

Her most frequent correspondent was Mills, her chief of staff, who sent thousands of notes. Next came Abedin, the deputy chief of staff, and Jacob Sullivan, also a deputy chief of staff, according to a tally by The Post.

Clinton used hdr22@clintonemail.com as her address, making it immediately apparent that the emails were not coming from or going to a government address.

Most of her emails were routine, including those sent to friends. Some involved the coordination of efforts to bring aid to Haiti by the State Department and her husband’s New York-based Clinton Foundation — notes that mixed government and family business, the emails show.

Others involved classified matters. State Department and Intelligence Community officials have determined that 2,093 email chains contained classified information. Most of the classified emails have been labeled as “confidential,” the lowest level of classification. Clinton herself authored 104 emails that contained classified material, a Post analysis later found.

Before the server received a digital certificate marking the use of standard encryption, Clinton and her aides exchanged notes touching on North Korea, Mexico, Afghanistan, military advisers, CIA operations and a briefing for Obama.

Clinton adviser Philippe Reines wrote a note to her about Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai. Reines started his note by reminding Clinton that Reines’s “close friend Jeremy Bash is now [CIA Director Leon E.] Panetta’s Chief of Staff.” The rest of the note was redacted before release, under grounds that it was national-security-sensitive.

On Sunday, March 29, 2009, just hours before standard encryption on the server began, Sullivan emailed Clinton a draft of a confidential report she was to make to Obama. “Attached is a draft of your Mexico trip report to POTUS,” Sullivan wrote.

In the high-pressure world of diplomacy, the sharing of such material had been a discreet but common practice for many years. Officials who manage problems around the clock require a never-ending flow of incisive information to make timely decisions.

Not all classified material is equally sensitive. Much of it involves discussions about foreign countries or leaders, not intelligence sources and methods. Working with classified materials can be cumbersome and, in the case of low-level classification, annoying.

On Feb. 10, 2010, in an exchange with Sullivan, Clinton vented her frustration one day when she wanted to read a statement regarding José Miguel Insulza, then secretary general of the Organization of American States. Sullivan wrote that he could not send it to her immediately because the department had put it on the classified network.

“It’s a public statement! Just email it,” Clinton shot back, just moments later.

“Trust me, I share your exasperation,” Sullivan wrote. “But until ops converts it to the unclassified email system, there is no physical way for me to email it. I can’t even access it.”

Early on June 17, 2011, Clinton grew impatient as she waited for “talking points” about a sensitive matter that had to be delivered via a secure line.

“They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it,” Sullivan wrote his boss.

Clinton told him to take a shortcut.

“If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” she said.

Clinton spokesman Fallon said she was not trying to circumvent the classification system.

“What she was asking was that any information that could be transmitted on the unclassified system be transmitted,” he said. “It is wrong to suggest that she was requesting otherwise. The State Department looked into this and confirmed that no classified material was sent through a non-secure fax or email.”

Security remained a constant concern. On June 28, 2011, in response to reports that Gmail accounts of government workers had been targeted by “online adversaries,” a note went out over Clinton’s name urging department employees to “avoid conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.”

But she herself ignored the warning and continued using her BlackBerry and the basement server.

In December 2012, near the end of Clinton’s tenure, a nonprofit group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a FOIA request seeking records about her email. CREW received a response in May 2013: “no records responsive to your request were located.”

Other requests for Clinton records met the same fate — until the State Department received a demand from the newly formed House Select Committee on Benghazi in July 2014. The committee wanted Clinton’s email, among other things, to see what she and others knew about the deadly attack in Libya and the response by the U.S. government.

Officials in the department’s congressional affairs office found some Clinton email and saw that she had relied on the private domain, not the department’s system.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry resolved to round up the Clinton emails and deliver them to Congress as quickly as possible. Department officials reached out to Clinton informally in the summer of 2014. On Oct. 28, 2014, the department contacted Clinton and the offices of three other former secretaries — Madeleine K. Albright, Condoleezza Rice and Colin L. Powell — asking if they had any email or other federal records in their possession.

Albright and Rice said they did not use email while at State. Powell, secretary of state from 2001 to 2005, had a private email account through America Online but did not retain copies of his emails. The inspector general for the State Department found that Powell’s personal email account had received two emails from staff that contained “national security information classified at the Secret or Confidential levels.”

Clinton lawyer David Kendall later told the State Department that her “use of personal email was consistent with the practices of other Secretaries of State,” citing Powell in particular, according to a letter he wrote in August.

But Powell’s circumstances also differed from Clinton’s in notable ways. Powell had a phone line installed in his office solely to link to his private account, which he generally used for personal or non-classified communication. At the time, he was pushing the department to embrace the Internet era and wanted to set an example.

“I performed a little test whenever I visited an embassy: I’d dive into the first open office I could find (sometimes it was the ambassador’s office). If the computer was on, I’d try to get into my private email account,” Powell wrote in “It Worked for Me: In Life and Leadership.” “If I could, they passed.”

Powell conducted virtually all of his classified communications on paper or over a State Department computer installed on his desk that was reserved for classified information, according to interviews. Clinton never had such a desktop or a classified email account, according to the State Department.

On Dec. 5, 2014, Clinton lawyers delivered 12 file boxes filled with printed paper containing more than 30,000 emails. Clinton withheld almost 32,000 emails deemed to be of a personal nature.

The department began releasing the emails last May, starting with some 296 emails requested by the Benghazi committee. In reviewing those emails, intelligence officials realized that some contained classified material.

Clinton and her campaign have offered various responses to questions about the classifications. At first, she flat-out denied that her server ever held any. “There is no classified material,” she said at a March 10, 2015, news conference.

Her campaign later released a statement saying she could not have known whether material was classified, because it was not labeled as such. “No information in Clinton’s emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them,” the statement said.

Clinton has also suggested that many of the emails were classified as a formality only because they were being prepared for release under a FOIA request. Her campaign has said that much of the classified material — in emails sent by more than 300 individuals — came from newspaper accounts and other public sources.

“What you are talking about is retroactive classification,” she said during a recent debate. “And I think what we have got here is a case of overclassification.” Her statement appears to conflict with a report to Congress last year by inspectors general from the State Department and the group of spy agencies known as the Intelligence Community. They made their report after the discovery that four emails, from a sample of 40 that went through her server, contained classified information.

“These emails were not retro­actively classified by the State Department,” the report said. “Rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.”

One of those four emails has since been declassified and released publicly by the State Department. The department has questioned the classification of another of those emails.

Twenty-two emails discovered later were deemed so highly classified that they were withheld in their entirety from public release. “They are on their face sensitive and obviously classified,” Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah), a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told The Post. “This information should have been maintained in the most secure, classified, top-secret servers.”

Fallon pointed out that none of those emails originated with Clinton, something that he said Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the Senate Select Intelligence Committee vice chairman, has noted. “We strongly disagree with the decision to withhold these emails in full,” he said.

Under Title 18, Section 1924, of federal law, it is a misdemeanor punishable by fines and imprisonment for a federal employee to knowingly remove classified information “without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.”

Previous cases brought under the law have required proof of an intent to mishandle classified information, a high hurdle in the Clinton case. The basement server also put Clinton at risk of violating laws and regulations aimed at protecting and preserving government records.

In a statement, Clinton’s campaign said she had received “guidance regarding the need to preserve federal records” and followed those rules. “It was her practice to email government employees on their ‘.gov’ email address. That way, work emails would be immediately captured and preserved in government ­record-keeping systems,” the statement said.

Fallon said that “over 90 percent” of the more than 30,000 work-related emails “were to or from government email accounts.”

Specialists interviewed by The Post said her practices fell short of what laws and regulations mandated. Some of those obligations were spelled out a few months before Clinton took office in National Archives and Records Administration Bulletin 2008-05, which said every email system was supposed to “permit easy and timely retrieval” of the records.

The secretary of state’s work emails are supposed to be preserved permanently. In addition, rules also mandated that permanent records are to be sent to the department’s Records Service Center “at the end of the Secretary’s tenure or sooner if necessary” for safekeeping.

Under Title 18, Section 2071, it is a misdemeanor to take federal records without authorization, something that is sometimes referred to as the “alienation” of records. The law is rarely enforced, but a conviction can carry a fine or imprisonment.

Jason R. Baron, a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration, told the Senate Judiciary Committee last year he believed that Clinton’s server ran afoul of the rules. In a memo to the committee, Baron wrote that “the setting up of and maintaining a private email network as the sole means to conduct official business by email, coupled with the failure to timely return email records into government custody, amounts to actions plainly inconsistent with the federal recordkeeping laws.”

On May 19, 2015, in response to a FOIA lawsuit from the media organization Vice News, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ordered all the email to be released in stages, with re­dactions.

One notable email was sent in August 2011. Stephen Mull, then serving as the department’s executive secretary, emailed Abedin, Mills and Kennedy about getting a government-issued BlackBerry linked to a government server for Clinton.

“We are working to provide the Secretary per her request a Department issued Blackberry to replace personal unit, which is malfunctioning (possibly because of her personal email server is down.) We will prepare two version for her to use — one with an operating State Department email account (which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests).”

Abedin responded decisively.

“Steve — let’s discuss the state blackberry. doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.”

Fallon said the email showed that the secretary’s staff “opposed the idea of her identity being masked.”

Last month, in a hearing about a Judicial Watch lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Sullivan cited that email as part of the reason he ordered the State Department produce records related to its initial failures in the FOIA searches for Clinton’s records.

Speaking in open court, Sullivan said legitimate questions have been raised about whether Clinton’s staff was trying to help her to sidestep FOIA.

“We’re talking about a Cabinet-level official who was accommodated by the government for reasons unknown to the public. And I think that’s a fair statement: For reasons heretofore unknown to the public. And all the public can do is speculate,” he said, adding: “This is all about the public’s right to know.”

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/29 21:08:30


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Never Forget Isstvan!





Chicago

Or instead of posting entire articles spoiler them so they don't take up the entire page

Ustrello paints- 30k, 40k multiple armies
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/614742.page 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




@whembley: I am not an advocate for Clinton, but rather intend to vote for Sanders.

I'm not a big Hilary Clinton fan. If she gets nominated, which is what's going to happen I will be voting against Trump rather than for Clinton. I perceive him as a huge threat to liberty and peace domestically, and now with the release of his foreign policy, a titanic threat to our allies, and also to a human-habitable Earth since he advocates nuclear proliferation.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 jasper76 wrote:
@whembley: I am not an advocate for Clinton, but rather intend to vote for Sanders.

I'm not a big Hilary Clinton fan. If she gets nominated, which is what's going to happen I will be voting against Trump rather than for Clinton. I perceive him as a huge threat to liberty and peace domestically, and now with the release of his foreign policy, a titanic threat to our allies, and also to a human-habitable Earth since he advocates nuclear proliferation.

I agree with you on Trump... but I wouldn't be voting for Clinton.

I'll be writing in Cthulhu PBUHC*



*Peace Be Upon His Chaos.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




A vote for Cthulu is a vote for Trump
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 jasper76 wrote:
A vote for Cthulu is a vote for Trump



Nope. In a hypothetical Clinton vs. Trump matchup... "A vote for Cthulu is a vote for Clinton".


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




In any case, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if records for third party votes, write-ins, etc are smashed this time around.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/03/29 17:24:31


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 jasper76 wrote:
In any case, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if records for third party votes, write-ins, etc are smashed this time around.

Both Sanders and Trump have implied heavily about a 3rd party run... Sanders still taking in enormous donations, so he could probably afford it.

Speaking of Sanders... if he endorses this article, I'd pull the lever for him:
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2016/03/25-make-elites-compete-why-one-percent-earn-so-much-rothwell
In summary:
The modern left still too often sees the world through a Marxist lens of capitalist owners trying to exploit people who sell their labor for a living. But that doesn’t help explain rising top incomes. On the other hand, many on the modern right wrongly infer that great earnings must only be generated by great people.

Progressive thinkers tend to revert to an anti-market stance, which means they reach for the wrong solutions in terms of policy. Conservatives, meanwhile, are often keen to remove regulatory barriers to competition, but still defend the financial sector and other elite earners.

Before Marx, Adam Smith provided a framework for political economy that is especially useful today. Smith warned against local trade associations which were inevitably conspiring “against the public…to raise prices,” and “restraining the competition in some employments to a smaller number than would otherwise…occasion a very important inequality” between occupations.

For earnings to be distributed more fairly, our goal is not to stand in the way of markets, but to make them work better.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Thane of Dol Guldur




I doubt Bernie runs Third Party (even though he actually is third party), because I'm pretty sure he knows how dangerous Trump would be.

Trump, on the other hand, might not be able to contain himself if somehow the stars align and he's denied the nomination at the convention. I don't think I've ever seen a human being, let alone a politician, so thin-skinned. Dude doesn't let real or perceived slights against him go. He seems constitutionally incapable of doing so.
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: