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.
Ouze wrote: You know that there have been 2 heads of Treasury and 2 Chairs of the Federal Reserve under the Obama administration, and none of those 4 people worked for Goldman Sachs, right? That's an actual question, because it seems to be a very common belief that Timothy Geithner worked for GS, and he did not.
Yes, I know Geithner never worked for Goldman Sachs. The Obama administration has filled many positions with former Goldman Sachs employees, they also have shown a preference for former Citigroup employees, which has been pointed out repeatedly by Elizabeth Warren.
Elizabeth Warren wrote:Mr. President, in recent years, many Wall Street institutions have exerted extraordinary influence in Washington’s corridors of power, but Citigroup has risen above the others. Its grip over economic policymaking in the executive branch is unprecedented. Consider a few examples:
•Three of the last four Treasury Secretaries under Democratic presidents have had close Citigroup ties. The fourth was offered the CEO position at Citigroup, but turned it down.
•The Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve is a Citigroup alum.
•The Undersecretary for International Affairs at Treasury is a Citigroup alum.
•The U.S. Trade Representative and the person nominated to be his deputy – who is currently an assistant secretary at Treasury – are Citigroup alums.
•A recent chairman of the National Economic Council at the White House was a Citigroup alum.
•Another recent Chairman of the Office of Management and Budget went to Citigroup immediately after leaving the White House.
•Another recent Chairman of the Office of Management of Budget and Management is also a Citi alum — but I’m double counting here because now he’s the Secretary of the Treasury.
That’s a lot of powerful people, all from one bank. But they aren’t Citigroup’s only source of power. Over the years, the company has spent millions of dollars on lobbying Congress and funding the political campaigns of its friends in the House and the Senate.
Citigroup has also spent millions trying to influence the political process in ways that are far more subtle—and hidden from public view. Last year, I wrote Citigroup and other big banks a letter asking them to disclose the amount of shareholder money they have been diverting to think tanks to influence public policy.
Citigroup’s response to my letter? Stonewalling. A year has gone by, and Citigroup didn’t even acknowledge receiving the letter.
Citigroup has a lot of money, it spends a lot of money, and it uses that money to grow and consolidate a lot of power. And it pays off. Consider a couple facts.
Fact one: During the financial crisis, when all the support through TARP and from the FDIC and the Fed is added up, Citi received nearly half a trillion dollars in bailouts. That’s half a trillion with a “t.” That’s almost $140 billion more than the next biggest bank got.
Fact two: During Dodd-Frank, there was an amendment introduced by my colleague Senator Brown and Senator Kaufman that would have broken up Citigroup and the nation’s other largest banks. That amendment had bipartisan support, and it might have passed, but it ran into powerful opposition from an alliance between Wall Streeters on Wall Street and Wall Streeters who held powerful government jobs. They teamed up and blocked the move to break up the banks—and now Citi is bigger than ever.
The role that senior officials working in the Treasury department played in killing the amendment was not subtle: A senior Treasury official acknowledged it at the time in a background interview with New York Magazine. The official from Treasury said, and I’m quoting here, “If we’d been for it, it probably would have happened. But we weren’t, so it didn’t.” That’s power.
Mr. President, Democrats don’t like Wall Street bailouts. Republicans don’t like Wall Street bailouts. The American people are disgusted by Wall Street bailouts. And yet here we are — five years after Dodd-Frank – with Congress on the verge of ramming through a provision that would do nothing for middle class, do nothing for community banks – do nothing but raise the risk that taxpayers will have to bail out the biggest banks once again.
There’s a lot of talk lately about how the Dodd-Frank Act isn’t perfect. There’s a lot of talk coming from Citigroup about how the Dodd-Frank Act isn’t perfect.
So let me say this to anyone who is listening at Citi: I agree with you. Dodd-Frank isn’t perfect.
It should have broken you into pieces.
There are plenty of Goldman Sachs employees in the Obama administration in important roles other than Treasury Security and Fed Chair.
So out of 120,000 treasury employees, we know that at least 6 worked for GS, out of 24,000 state department employees at least 2 worked for GS, and the people voted for one former employee?
That's well past incompetence. He's either monumentally stupid or he thinks he can get away with ignoring 9/11, in which case he's also monumentally stupid.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Ahtman wrote: It is a conspiracy theory so it gives you whatever you want.
That is a very good point.
When you say things like that I die a little inside.
Die inside completely and you become Kim Kardashian. Its a life of empty, self-inflicted misery, but with $500k payments just for sitting at a nightclub table for two hours, so...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Yes, lots of famous people get paid lots of money to make appearances and give speeches. However, having a person that is likely to be the next president of the US taking hundreds of thousands of dollars to give speeches to Goldman Sachs, the company whose employees go on to run the Treasury Dept and Federal Reserve does in fact, give the appearance of impropriety.
If Clinton was receiving the bulk of her speaking fees from the banks you would have a cause for complaint. However Clinton gave 92 speeches between leaving the State Dept and announcing her candidacy. She gave those speeches to all manner of industries and not-for-profit groups. 8 of the speeches were to the banks, for a total of $1.8m out of $21.6m.
Again, that's the primary problem I have with Hillary's candidacy, she's just more of the same status quo problems that we're dealing with and she gives no signs of any willingness to change from standard political practices and thinking. Maybe we shouldn't have the same people using Goldman Sachs, the Treasury Dept and the Federal Reserve as a revolving door of jobs and appointments, the same people pushing the same policies and the same agendas but that won't happen under a Clinton presidency.
I agree with you on the revolving door situation, it is a problem. But that problem, and it's solution, have exactly nothing to do with whether or not Clinton will release the transcripts of her Wall St speeches.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/16 00:29:47
“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.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Are you suggesting that the federal government should have interfered with private businesses prior to the crash and brought in strict regulations which basically banned sup-prime lending, which is basically the only way it could have done anything to avoid that crash?
The crash wasn't caused by sub-prime lending. Sub-prime lending was over-extended, but no more than you see in any market correction. The issue was with the recklessly high leverage the global financial sector had taken on, some major Wall St firms were leveraged at 30 to 1 or even 40 to 1.
On top of this you had the shadow market - the vast and very poorly understood new world of derivatives. The cutting up and on-selling of mortgage backed securities was the most commonly discussed form, but that was the tip of the iceberg. AIG had $3 trillion in exposures through its derivatives, and because this wasn't reported or even completely understood within AIG, they had not $1 set aside in reserves in case those derivatives went south.
When you're leveraged at 30 to 1, and on top of that have trillions in unreported exposures that you barely understand and have no reserves to cover, then it only takes the smallest wobble to send you down. And when a whole lot of banking and finance companies are in similar positions, that's pretty much a GFC right there.
“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.
sebster wrote: ...whether or not Clinton will release the transcripts of her Wall St speeches.
I don't believe her transcripts make a bit of difference. There's no smoking gun in them so Clinton loyalists will remain so and those who believe she's the personification of corruption won't vote for her even if Jesus Christ himself came back from beyond and endorsed her on live TV.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Are you suggesting that the federal government should have interfered with private businesses prior to the crash and brought in strict regulations which basically banned sup-prime lending, which is basically the only way it could have done anything to avoid that crash?
The crash wasn't caused by sub-prime lending. Sub-prime lending was over-extended, but no more than you see in any market correction. The issue was with the recklessly high leverage the global financial sector had taken on, some major Wall St firms were leveraged at 30 to 1 or even 40 to 1.
On top of this you had the shadow market - the vast and very poorly understood new world of derivatives. The cutting up and on-selling of mortgage backed securities was the most commonly discussed form, but that was the tip of the iceberg. AIG had $3 trillion in exposures through its derivatives, and because this wasn't reported or even completely understood within AIG, they had not $1 set aside in reserves in case those derivatives went south.
When you're leveraged at 30 to 1, and on top of that have trillions in unreported exposures that you barely understand and have no reserves to cover, then it only takes the smallest wobble to send you down. And when a whole lot of banking and finance companies are in similar positions, that's pretty much a GFC right there.
Fair enough. I will admit to not being anywhere near an expert on economics (like, in the measure of parsecs kind of nowhere near), so I was just repeating what I had read about and heard about at the time, which would be the very dumbed down version.
Coincidentally also just watched the South Park episode about this topic
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/16 01:07:09
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Prestor Jon wrote: More recently, if the "experts" with experience at Goldman Sachs understood complex financial structures and transactions like mortgage backed securities and derivatives then why did they let Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy up all those subprime and gimmicky mortgages that were certain to default?
I think you're placing a level of uncertainty where there isn't any. They were 'certain to default' in hindsight, but it wasn't common knowledge at the time. Like in every bubble, an amazing number of people, including experts, thought prices would rise forever. And on top of that the corruption of the ratings agencies wasn't fully known, some people knew they could manipulate agency ratings, no-one realised everyone was getting ratings manipulated.
And then on top of that you have the exposure to trillions in derivatives, on top of a financial sector that was leveraged to obscene levels.
Basically, tranching and on-selling of mortgage backed securities is a sensible and useful policy, as long as everything else hasn't gone to hell. But when you have corrupted ratings agencies and over-leveraged banks then those securities become another part of the debacle.
While there are plenty of problems with government and Wall St firms trading employees, it isn't responsible for every problem. First and foremost remember the G in GFC is 'global' - you can't talk about US specific problems as a cause of the GFC.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Please... the Republican has been campaigning on SMALLER GOVERNMENT... not that government is BAD.
First up, to quote the saint; "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
He didn't mention bigger or smaller, he presented government of any size as the problem.
Second up, if it was about smaller government then Republicans would have found something new to campaign on, because they won the battle for smaller government decades ago.
And yes, I've been sitting on that graph for ages, for a chance to use it
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/16 01:31:41
“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.
Breotan wrote: I don't believe her transcripts make a bit of difference. There's no smoking gun in them so Clinton loyalists will remain so and those who believe she's the personification of corruption won't vote for her even if Jesus Christ himself came back from beyond and endorsed her on live TV.
It isn't just that it won't make a difference to entrenched supporters, it's that those transcripts mean nothing. She spoke to an industry group. It's what people do. When they're in government they do it. When they're out of government they still do it, and now get paid a stupid amount of money for the pleasure.
There's a lot of conversation to be had about Wall St and how it influences government for its own benefit. But trying to take concern about that issue and smear it on to Clinton is misrepresenting what actually happened, and it is undercutting real conversation about financial reform.
Meanwhile, for a sign of who's actually on the side of Wall St and who's looking for more regulation, just look at the finance sector's campaign contributions. In 2008 Democrats got slightly more than Republicans, for the first time in decades. Democrats $265m, Republicans $252m. But Democrats then put through a series of financial reforms, which Republicans attempted to block or curtail as best they could. By 2012 support for Democrats dropped to $169m, while Republican funding had spiked to $356m - more than double the Democrats. That extreme has leveled off, in this campaign Democrats are now getting $123m to the Republicans $202m.
If you want to know who's working for the banks, look at who the banks support with campaign dollars.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Fair enough. I will admit to not being anywhere near an expert on economics (like, in the measure of parsecs kind of nowhere near), so I was just repeating what I had read about and heard about at the time, which would be the very dumbed down version.
The issue is that that explanations for the GFC aren't just dumbed down, they're frequently very manipulative, to the point of being dishonest. People are trying to sell their ideologies and so they pick out one or two parts of the GFC and claim they were the cause of the whole thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I don't understand the conservative obsession with Reagan in any way. This was a guy who nearly tripled the deficit, vastly increased the size of the federal government, created the EITC, backed what became Al Qaeda, raised the debt ceiling 17 times, gave amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, and illegally sold weapons to Iran. It's just mind boggling, the level of cognitive dissonance involved in that particular hero worship.
I was just read an analysis of spending under Reagan compared to Obama, and it reminded me of your post. From the article,
"Over the 24 months that followed the start of Reagan's recovery, government spending per person — combining federal, state, and local levels — grew almost 15 percent. But 18 months after the Great Recession, per person government spending had declined 7 percent."
"Had government spending during Obama's tenure behaved the same way it did during Reagan's, government spending would currently be roughly one trillion dollars higher than it is. With that amount of extra money, "you're way beyond what I think anybody says the remaining output gap is in the economy""
"Ironically, it was not until Republicans retook the House and Senate under Bill Clinton, a Democratic president, that per capita government spending stopped growing. Funnily enough, it grew again under George W. Bush, but at a more modest rate than under Reagan. Then it went into reverse when the Democrats retook the White House with Obama, and the GOP consolidated its hold on Congress."
The article does point out, quite rightly, that the president doesn't get to choose the budget all by himself, he has to work with congress. And both Republicans and Democrats fought against some of Reagan's planned cuts. But that isn't the whole story - Reagan never looked to cut costs on Medicare or Social Security, and where he did look to cut it was never going to offset his big increases in defence spending.
But it does show the simple mathematical reality of recessions. When private sector spending disappears, either government picks up the slack, or you have lots of job losses and a slow recovery. In the 80s, for lots of reasons the US chose to ramp up government spending, and the result was a very quick economic recovery. In 2008, for lots of reasons, people got really hostile about more government debt and govt spending per capita was slashed, and the result has been a very slow recovery.
Simple reality is that when have a financial shock you have to accept a short to medium loss of jobs, or you have to accept a short to medium govt deficit.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/08/16 04:09:36
“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.
Andrew D. Basiago is a prominent figure in the Truth Movement.
For more than 10 years, he has shared with the American people the true facts of our great nation’s accomplishments in time travel and Mars visitation.
He has done so as one who served bravely in the two secret U.S. defense projects in which time travel on Earth and voyages to Mars were first undertaken.
As a result of his courageous advocacy as a crusading lawyer, Andy is credited with ending the time travel and Mars cover-ups by the US government on behalf of the American people.
This arduous work in the vineyards of the Truth Movement represented historic breakthroughs in America’s understanding of our past and our prospects for the future.
Today, Andrew D. Basiago is running for President of the United States with a New Agenda for a New America.
He has vowed that if elected President, he will lead the American people into a bold, new era of Truth, Reform, and Innovation as great as they are great.
Join us in supporting Andy in his quest to establish a Presidency as honest, just, and ingenious as the American people.
Andy 2016 – Now is the time!
We're all very grateful for his work ending the USA govts' time travel experiments.
... so he's running even though it's already set ...?
at last !
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,
It's fascinating, I never knew that the moon landings were fake, but that there are colonies on Mars damaging the fragile Martian eco-system! Perhaps the US sponsored time-travelling sasquatch will finally be allowed to teleport to the White House.
Still, at least he's not as mental as Trump. Vote Andy!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/16 10:39:35
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Normally, I'd post this in the ISIS thread, but I feel it has special significance for this thread.
Russia Today is saying that Chinese State Media has announced Chinese military support and assistance for Syria...
Details of what this support is, was not made clear, but alarm bells should be ringing in Washington....
As I've mentioned before on this topic, both Trump and HRC are campaigning as though foreign policy does not exist or is not needed...
They, and I include Obama in this, could start by asking the logical question: why now?
The war has been going on for 5 years, and yet, here we are with China about to get involved...
IMO, China is taking advantage of that great American weakness: the presidential cycle and the transition between November and January, with a lame duck President out the door, and a new President who'll need time to get their feet under the table...
Clearly, China is testing the water. We've already seen them increase influence in Gulf states with oil purchases, but this is a whole new dimension...They will be looking and judging any American reaction...
The new president needs to sit down with their team and have a long hard think, and ask their strategists some tough questions: What are our interests? What do we have? What are we prepared to spend? How far will we go to defend those interests? Do we want to maintain the status quo in the Middle East, or are we looking to defeat our enemies through economic might? Soft power? Expanding democracy? Getting others to fight for us? And so on and so on...
The USA and its allies are already engaged in a proxy war against Russia/Iran + their allies in the Middle East, so Chinese involvement could add a whole new dimension...
Luckily, the USA has some strong cards itself to play in the ME, notably Israel, and their Kurdish allies,
But the next American president has got to have a long, hard think about American policy in the Middle East...
"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
Prestor Jon wrote: Yes, lots of famous people get paid lots of money to make appearances and give speeches. However, having a person that is likely to be the next president of the US taking hundreds of thousands of dollars to give speeches to Goldman Sachs, the company whose employees go on to run the Treasury Dept and Federal Reserve does in fact, give the appearance of impropriety.
If Clinton was receiving the bulk of her speaking fees from the banks you would have a cause for complaint. However Clinton gave 92 speeches between leaving the State Dept and announcing her candidacy. She gave those speeches to all manner of industries and not-for-profit groups. 8 of the speeches were to the banks, for a total of $1.8m out of $21.6m.
Again, that's the primary problem I have with Hillary's candidacy, she's just more of the same status quo problems that we're dealing with and she gives no signs of any willingness to change from standard political practices and thinking. Maybe we shouldn't have the same people using Goldman Sachs, the Treasury Dept and the Federal Reserve as a revolving door of jobs and appointments, the same people pushing the same policies and the same agendas but that won't happen under a Clinton presidency.
I agree with you on the revolving door situation, it is a problem. But that problem, and it's solution, have exactly nothing to do with whether or not Clinton will release the transcripts of her Wall St speeches.
The number of speeches Clinton gave to Wall St investment banks is irrelevant, it still creates the appearance of impropriety when Hillary profits from taking speaking engagements from companies whose chief officers will likely be the pool from which she draws personnel to work in federal departments under her administration. Whether taking the $1.8m in speaking fees from them isn't really a quid pro quo for some of them getting jobs in the federal govt under Clinton or not, it still looks bad and Clinton doesn't need the money so it feeds a narrative that hurts Clinton.
I personally don't care if she releases the transcripts. I don't think there would be anything in them that would infer any corruption on Clinton's part. There may be parts of the speeches that would conflict with some of her campaign speeches about the economy/financial district so it may be smart for her to never release them. The issue with speeches to Wall St isn't the content, it's the fact that it looks like another example of wealthy people buying access and influence that's compounded by the revolving door relationship that the federal agencies have with those companies when it comes to the people managing them. It hurts Clinton because it furthers the narrative that Hillary is just more politics as usual at a time when a lot of people are fed up with our politics. By itself it's a minor thing but added together with others it creates a lot of tarnish for the idea that Hillary is any kind of white knight that can ride in and help fix the problems we're facing.
But it could easily be fixed to get Trump in, since the Russians and Chinese like him so much and have form for hacking US government databases. (DNC technically isn't the government but it's close enough to worry about.)
I can't be the only one who finds Putin's presence in this election to be troubling, can I?
Trump's man-crush on Putin is...whatever. His daughter was friends with Putin's girlfriend previously. Fine.
But his advisor, Paul Manafort, has many real, close connections to Putin and his cronies as that Slate article outlined. And today I saw more info about Manafort in the Ukraine from the NYT article , which states
And Mr. Manafort’s presence remains elsewhere here in the capital, where government investigators examining secret records have found his name, as well as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr. Manafort’s main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych.
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine’s newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials.
And then, of course, we have all the hacking Russia did on the DNC. Is Putin the old KGB chief trying to rig/influence/steal an election in the U.S.?
But it could easily be fixed to get Trump in, since the Russians and Chinese like him so much and have form for hacking US government databases. (DNC technically isn't the government but it's close enough to worry about.)
I can't be the only one who finds Putin's presence in this election to be troubling, can I?
Trump's man-crush on Putin is...whatever. His daughter was friends with Putin's girlfriend previously. Fine.
But his advisor, Paul Manafort, has many real, close connections to Putin and his cronies as that Slate article outlined. And today I saw more info about Manafort in the Ukraine from the NYT article , which states
And Mr. Manafort’s presence remains elsewhere here in the capital, where government investigators examining secret records have found his name, as well as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr. Manafort’s main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych.
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych’s pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine’s newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials.
Right there with you buddy. I think I've brought this up before ITT as well.
The Clinton's have "Moscow Connections" as well... but, at least they tried to keep it down low.
And then, of course, we have all the hacking Russia did on the DNC. Is Putin the old KGB chief trying to rig/influence/steal an election in the U.S.?
Allegedly...
However, if true that should piss off all of us... what should be our "response"?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Normally, I'd post this in the ISIS thread, but I feel it has special significance for this thread.
Russia Today is saying that Chinese State Media has announced Chinese military support and assistance for Syria...
Details of what this support is, was not made clear, but alarm bells should be ringing in Washington....
As I've mentioned before on this topic, both Trump and HRC are campaigning as though foreign policy does not exist or is not needed...
They, and I include Obama in this, could start by asking the logical question: why now?
The war has been going on for 5 years, and yet, here we are with China about to get involved...
IMO, China is taking advantage of that great American weakness: the presidential cycle and the transition between November and January, with a lame duck President out the door, and a new President who'll need time to get their feet under the table...
Clearly, China is testing the water. We've already seen them increase influence in Gulf states with oil purchases, but this is a whole new dimension...They will be looking and judging any American reaction...
The new president needs to sit down with their team and have a long hard think, and ask their strategists some tough questions: What are our interests? What do we have? What are we prepared to spend? How far will we go to defend those interests? Do we want to maintain the status quo in the Middle East, or are we looking to defeat our enemies through economic might? Soft power? Expanding democracy? Getting others to fight for us? And so on and so on...
The USA and its allies are already engaged in a proxy war against Russia/Iran + their allies in the Middle East, so Chinese involvement could add a whole new dimension...
Luckily, the USA has some strong cards itself to play in the ME, notably Israel, and their Kurdish allies,
But the next American president has got to have a long, hard think about American policy in the Middle East...
Future American ME Policy? ...YOURS! China, Russia, Vanuatu, whoever...the ME is YOURS ALL DAY if you want it.
The biggest mistake America has made is wading into that medieval cesspool thinking money and guns will change their thinking...'Murica! More like Idiotica! Let those dice fall where they will and let the countries over there sort out their own religious civil war. Enough money down the drain. Enough American blood spilled. Enough.
A Navy sailor facing the possibility of years in prison for taking a handful of classified photos inside a nuclear submarine is making a bid for leniency by citing the decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton over classified information authorities say was found in her private email account.
Petty Officer First Class Kristian Saucier, 29, is set to be sentenced Friday on a single felony charge of retaining national defense information without permission.
In May, Saucier pleaded guilty in federal court in Bridgeport, Conn., admitting that while working on the U.S.S. Alexandria in 2009 he took and kept six photos showing parts of the sub's propulsion system he knew to be classified.
The defense and prosecutors agree that sentencing guidelines in the case call for a prison term of 63 to 78 months, but defense attorney Derrick Hogan cited the treatment of Clinton as he argued in a filing last week that Saucier should get probation instead.
"Democratic Presidential Candidate and former Secretary of State Hilary [sic] Clinton...has come under scrutiny for engaging in acts similar to Mr. Saucier," Hogan wrote. He noted that FBI Director James Comey said 110 emails in 52 email chains in Clinton's account contained information deemed classified at the time, including eight chains with "top secret" information and 36 with "secret" information.
"In our case, Mr. Saucier possessed six (6) photographs classified as 'confidential/restricted,' far less than Clinton's 110 emails," Hogan wrote. "It will be unjust and unfair for Mr. Saucier to receive any sentence other than probation for a crime those more powerful than him will likely avoid."
There are distinctions between the cases. Saucier admitted as part of a plea bargain that he "knew from his training and his specialized work upon the submarine" that the photos contained classified information and he wasn't authorized to take them. He also admitted that after being confronted by law enforcement in 2012 he destroyed a laptop, camera and memory card.
Clinton has said she didn't know any information on her server was classified, although Comey has said anyone in Clinton's position "should have known that an unclassified system was no place" for some of the subjects being discussed. While Clinton had tens of thousands of emails erased from her system in 2014, she did so with the advice of lawyers and before the FBI investigation was underway.
Saucier's drive for leniency may ultimately benefit more from the treatment of some of his fellow submates than from the handling of cases involving Clinton or other prominent officials. Hogan cites incidents involving two other Navy sailors on the Alexandria who were caught taking photos in classified spaces on the vessel. One received a one rank reduction and was docked $560 in pay. The other was just docked $560 in pay. Both cases were handled through a Captain's Mast hearing used for relatively minor cases.
Letters submitted on Saucier's behalf attempt to shift some of the blame to the Navy, both over the command climate for junior sailors on the Alexandria and lax policies in that era towards electronics on subs.
"We worked them too hard, we didn't give them as much time off as we should have, we didn't treat them with the dignity and respect that they deserved, and we never let off. Ever," wrote retired Chief Machinists Mate Scott Nelson, who worked with Saucier on the Alexandria. "The men were showing signs of cracking left and right...The human pieces of the machine were being pushed past their limits."
"I believe that we, the leadership own a significant portion of the blame for creating the environment where these men thought this was a good idea," Nelson added.
Another former colleague of Saucier's, Ryan Meldrum, called Saucier a "war hero" and wrote that the case should have been handled in the Navy by bumping the sailor down a rank.
"I am sorry to see that this is taking up time in Federal District Court, but I pray that this can be disposed of so as to not dissuade other patriots such as Kris from serving our great country," said Meldrum, who recent graduated from Pace University law school.
"Kris does not deserve what he is going through....If you look at the Navy records you will see countless mishandling classified material cases where many people are still in the Navy and many more where people were asked to get out," added Mark Robb, another former submate who said he was pushed out of the Navy over a similar incident in 2014.
Some submitting letters on Saucier's behalf attribute the relatively tough treatment he seems to be receiving to "serious" allegations his ex-wife leveled at him early in the investigation. Saucier's defense disputes a probation officer's conclusion that the sailor intended to share some of the photos with "foreign agencies," an allegation that prosecutors have not made publicly.
Still, court records show the probation officer is recommending Saucier receive less than the five-year, three-month sentence called for by federal guidelines. The precise recommendations from the probation official and prosecutors have not been made public.
Saucier remains in the Navy, but expects to be dismissed from the service with an "other than honorable" discharge, the defense filing said.
Most recently, Democratic Presidential Candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (hereinafter “Clinton”) has come under scrutiny for engaging in acts similar to Mr. Saucier.
FBI Director James Comey (hereinafter “Comey”) stated that there was “110 emails and 52 email chains” that were deemed classified on Hilary [sic] Clinton’s personal servers collected in 2014. Of those emails, 8 of these chains contained “top secret” information, 36 contained “secret” information, and 8 contained “confidential” information.
Additionally, 2,000 emails were later deemed confidential. Comey stated that “none of these emails should be on personal servers,” however, the FBI recommended Ms. Clinton not be brought up on any chargers [sic] as she lacked “intent.” In our case, Mr. Saucier possessed six (6) photographs classified as “confidential/restricted,” far less than Clinton’s 110 emails. Furthermore, Mr. Saucier pleaded guilty to 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which does not require intent.
It only required that he had “unauthorized possession” of the photographs. Wherefore, it will be unjust and unfair for Mr. Saucier to receive any sentence other than probation for a crime those more powerful than him will likely avoid.
Weird thing that's bugging me... I thought the DoJ couldn't prosecute anyone who's in the service? I thought only UCMJ had jurisdiction... o.O
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/16 15:55:39
