www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGv2SPB8pNU
Printable View
I wasn't complaining about Trump running as an independent. I hope he does as that would assure a Democrat victory.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
First you complain Trump leaves open to running outside the two party system, then in the same post you complain about the two party system:smileylaughing:Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
The lemming I was referring to was you. You stated that Bernie would siphon off votes from Hillary. That however is incorrect because Bernie already has made it clear he will not run as an independent in the general election.
If you cant keep up you should not be posting. :rolleyes:
An article of stray factlets strung together on the thin ephemera of what-if.
If the level discourse and civility here was improved the forum would be a better place and I give credit to both Chuckd and Davis for making it an issue. But it is up to each poster to clean up his own act and that goes for you too because honestly it is a bit disengenuous to point out the faults of others while doing little to raise the caliber of your own discourse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
I think "a bit disengenuous" is an understatement.
The sheer hypocrisy of it is a bit mind-boggling.
Why do republicans love the moonie cult so much? Y'all be southern baptists, mormons & moonies now. The rest of us prefer to walk on planet earth. I look forward to the rebirth of the normal republican.
Hardy - if you care to ask your neighbour to read and explain these posts you will see that Trump running as an I would be great . . . for all.Quote:
Originally Posted by RPETER65
QeDQuote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
Crayon mode: The lemming I was referring to was you. You stated that Bernie would siphon off votes from Hillary. That however is incorrect because Bernie already has made it clear he will not run as an independent in the general electionQuote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
Deaf ears and all that . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
JUDGE: Hillary's emails violated policy...Hillary Clinton 2016: Emails violated policy says judge - POLITICO
Orders State Dept to coordinate with FBI about server...Judge orders State to coordinate with FBI about Clinton server | TheHill
Bill Clinton appointee...Hillary Clinton 'Violated Government Policy,' Says Federal Judge | National Review Online
Shouldn't make a bit of difference re the Clinton appointee as the law is the law. :chitown:
Hillary Clinton: I’m “adamantly against illegal immigrants.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxASD4jHgCk
Meanwhile, Jennifer Palmieri's stuttering, stammering, incoherent response to questions about Hillary's emails is getting some attention.
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/cli...eleted-emails/
Gay Marriage and NAFTA lies, among others:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbnKGopT0Uc
^^WTF?
Sooner or later, Gramm's gonna have a severe melt-down over this and that will be game over for she.
Hillary is a great investor: she invested $1,000 and turned it into $100,000 in futures. She read the Wall St. Journal and "talk to people."
Wednesday, March 30, 1994
Hillary Clinton Invested $1,000, Netted $100,000 Through Trading
By Angie Cannon, Frank Greve
WASHINGTON - The disclosure that Hillary Rodham Clinton parlayed $1,000 into nearly $100,000 through highly speculative commodities trading may create political embarrassment for the Clintons, who have sharply criticized a national culture of greed during the Reagan and Bush years in the White House.
Mrs. Clinton, whose commodity trading came during the early years of her husband's political career and before Ronald Reagan was elected president, was guided through the risky trades by James Blair, a friend and top lawyer for one of Arkansas' most powerful companies, Tyson Foods Inc. She also "talked to other people" and read the Wall Street Journal to research her trades, a White House official said yesterday.
..... Mrs. Clinton made dramatic gains by investing in live cattle futures, which are contracts linked to an anticipated future value of 40,000 pounds of slaughter-ready beef cattle.
"There were other people who made the money she did," said Levitt, but they were lucky, and their timing was perfect. As a new player, he added, "she had to have one heck of a good adviser or one very good broker."
Business | Hillary Clinton Invested $1,000, Netted $100,000 Through Trading | Seattle Times Newspaper
^
That was one of her earlier scams.
The woman isn't fit to be in Public Office.
Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest
https://teakdoor.com/images/imported/2015/08/1257.jpg
Grandma is in real trouble...
"For months, the U.S. State Department has stood behind its former boss Hillary Clinton as she has repeatedly said she did not send or receive classified information on her unsecured, private email account, a practice the government forbids.
While the department is now stamping a few dozen of the publicly released emails as "Classified," it stresses this is not evidence of rule-breaking. Those stamps are new, it says, and do not mean the information was classified when Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 presidential election, first sent or received it.
But the details included in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.
The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.
In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.
This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.
"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.
"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."
Reuters' findings may add to questions that Clinton has been facing over her adherence to rules concerning sensitive government information. Spokesmen for Clinton declined to answer questions, but Clinton and her staff maintain she did not mishandle any information.
"I did not send classified material, and I did not receive any material that was marked or designated classified," Clinton told reporters at a campaign event in Nevada on Tuesday.
Although it appears to be true for Clinton to say none of her emails included classification markings, a point she and her staff have emphasized, the government's standard nondisclosure agreement warns people authorized to handle classified information that it may not be marked that way and that it may come in oral form.
The State Department disputed Reuters' analysis but declined requests to explain how it was incorrect.
The findings of the Reuters review are separate from the recent analysis by the inspector general for U.S. intelligence agencies, who said last month that his office found four emails that contained classified government secrets at the time they were sent in a sample of 40 emails not yet made public.
RELATED COVERAGE
› Some Clinton emails newly 'Classified' but declassify dates raise questions
The State Department has said it does not know whether the inspector general is correct. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has launched an investigation into the security of the copies of the emails outside the government's control.
FOR THE SECRETARY'S EYES ONLY
Clinton and her senior staff routinely sent foreign government information among themselves on unsecured networks several times a month, if the State Department's markings are correct. Within the 30 email threads reviewed by Reuters, Clinton herself sent at least 17 emails that contained this sort of information. In at least one case it was to a friend, Sidney Blumenthal, not in government.
The information appears to include privately shared comments by a prime minister, several foreign ministers and a foreign spy chief, unredacted bits of the emails show. Typically, Clinton and her staff first learned the information in private meetings, telephone calls or, less often, in email exchanges with the foreign officials.
In an email from November 2009, the principal private secretary to David Miliband, then the British foreign secretary, indicates that he is passing on information about Afghanistan from his boss in confidence. He writes to Huma Abedin, Clinton's most senior aide, that Miliband "very much wants the Secretary (only) to see this note."
Nearly five pages of entirely redacted information follow. Abedin forwarded it on to Clinton's private email account.
State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach, in an initial response to questions on how the department applies classification regulations, said that Reuters was making "outlandish accusations." In a later email, he said it was impossible for the department to know now whether any of the information was classified when it was first sent.
"We do not have the ability to go back and recreate all of the various factors that would have gone into the determinations," he wrote.
The Reuters review also found that the declassification dates the department has been marking on these emails suggest the department might believe the information was classified all along. Gerlach said this was incorrect.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
A series of presidential executive orders has governed how officials should handle the ceaseless incoming stream of raw, usually unmarked information they acquire in their work. Since at least 2003, they have emphasized that information shared by a foreign government with an expectation or agreement of confidentiality is the only kind that is "presumed" classified.
The State Department's own regulations, as laid out in the Foreign Affairs Manual, have been unequivocal since at least 1999: all department employees "must ... safeguard foreign government and NATO RESTRICTED information as U.S. Government Confidential" or higher, according to the version in force in 2009, when these particular emails were sent.
"Confidential" is the lowest U.S. classification level for information that could harm national security if leaked, after "top secret" and "secret".
State Department staff, including the secretary of state, receive training on how to classify and handle sensitive information, the department has said. In March, Clinton said she was "certainly well aware" of classification requirements.
Reuters was unable to rule out the possibility that the State Department was now overclassifying the information in the emails, or applying the regulations in some other improper or unusual way.
John Fitzpatrick, the current ISOO director, said Reuters had correctly identified all the governing rules but said it would be inappropriate for his office to take a stance on Clinton's emails, in part because he did not know the context in which the information was given.
A spokeswoman for one of the foreign governments whose information appears in Clinton's emails said, on condition of anonymity to protect diplomatic relations, that the information was shared confidentially in 2009 with Clinton and her senior staff.
If so, it appears this information should have been classified at the time and not handled on a private unsecured email network, according to government regulations.
The foreign government expects all private exchanges with U.S. officials to be treated that way, the spokeswoman for the foreign government said.
Leonard, the former ISOO director, said this sort of information was improperly shared by officials through insecure channels more frequently than the public may realize, although more typically within the unsecured .gov email network than on private email accounts.
With few exceptions, officials are forbidden from sending classified information even via the .gov email network and must use a dedicated secure network instead. The difference in Clinton's case, Leonard said, is that so-called "spillages" of classified information within the .gov network are easier to track and contain."
Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest | Reuters
Oh, BTW, y'all can see that the evidence is from Rooters and not some bias Lamestream organ...
I heard a rumour that when Hillary was 17, she farted in a cinema- and the very next day she pissed in a swimming pool. go investigate.
Naw, it was when she was 13 and giviing BJ's to the boys in the locker room. No investigation needed...:DQuote:
Originally Posted by sabang
Well that's not at all disturbingly inappropriate. :confused:
The tip of the iceberg......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYKAzJcU-DA
Transcript via CNN:
REP. DARRELL ISSA (R), CALIFORNIA: Well, Wolf, the one thing we now know is that, as they said, about 300 separate e-mails, maybe more, contain classified information. And I think it’s important to get above the discussion of classified documents and so on. If you or I go to a briefing, and we receive classified information, and we then produce an e-mail that says things that were in that briefing, that is disclosing classified information. That appears to be what happened.
….
It’s not an accident to have 300 e-mails become retroactively, if you will, determined to be classified. That means somebody sent out classified information and did not recognize it as classified.
Huma, her assistant, her second daughter, if you will, is brilliant. Hillary Clinton is brilliant. So the question is, are people that smart unable to recognize sensitive classified information? I don’t believe so. And I think the FBI needs to look at this, because in fact her server may very well have been constantly observed by third parties, because quite candidly it’s not a classified network. It didn’t enjoy the robust protection that one would expect to have.
BLITZER: Well, my understanding is those 300 e-mails they’re looking at now, that they haven’t definitively ruled that it was classified information. They’re going over it right now. There seems to be a dispute going on between the State Department and other agencies of the U.S. government what should have been classified, even if it had not been classified at the time. Is that your understanding, as well?
ISSA: Well, it is. But I’ll give you a little piece of history. During my chairmanship, it was amazing how the State Department classified the most mundane information, even when publicly available. In this case, it appears as though State would like to say these things weren’t particularly classified.
Well, the CIA and NSA and other clandestine agencies appear to be appalled that very sensitive information was sent out on her nongovernment server in an unclassified format.
With one fact based question, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer was able to derail the Republican myth of the 300 classified emails.
It is a mystery why CNN or any other cable network continues to give Darrell Issa airtime. Rep. Issa is a compulsive liar whose singular motivation is to get attention and publicity for himself.
When he was a committee chairman, Issa’s House Oversight Committee reached Joseph McCarthy levels of bias and power abuse. Issa was such a joke that Speaker John Boehner kept him off of the Select Committee investigating Benghazi. Issa has become so desperate for attention that he tried to crash a closed deposition of the Benghazi committee only to be escorted out of the room by Committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy.
Clinton’s emails have become the new Republican conspiracy, but all it took was one fact based question to get Issa to admit that the 300 classified emails talking point was not true.
CNN Busts Darrell Issa For Lying About Classified Hillary Clinton Emails
Derail? Nah, can you imagine the likes of BM being put in his place by facts? :rofl: Funny!Quote:
Originally Posted by bsnub
^ and ^^
Myth or no myth.
It's an issue - because it can affect the publics' perception of her.
Even Jerry Brown is noting that this is another one of the "issues" that may or may unfold as time goes on. We sit back, observe, and see what, if anything happens as a result.
Here is a short video clip of Brown. Do you agree with him?
JERRY BROWN: HILLARY CLINTON’S EMAIL SCANDAL ‘LIKE A VAMPIRE’
Video at this link.
Jerry Brown: Hillary Clinton's Email Scandal 'Like a Vampire'
Must admit I agree with Bernie on this one. For profit prisons just doesn't sit right with me and is doomed for corruption:
Private Prisons Get Bern-ed: Sanders Proposes Abolishing For-profit Facilities | Alternet
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is taking his criminal justice reform platform from the campaign trail to the Senate with a plan to introduce legislation outlawing private prisons when Congress returns from August recess.
Daily Kos first noted that at his Reno, Nevada, rally on Tuesday night, the Independent senator told a gathered crowd of 4,500 supporters that “when Congress reconvenes in September, I will be introducing legislation, which takes corporations out of profiteering from running jails.”
Sanders, who is opposed to building any new prisons, has long advocated against draconian sentencing laws, voting in favor of investments in alternative sentencing and telling the Nevada crowd that he also plans to tackle mandatory minimums for certain crimes:We want to deal with minimum sentencing. Too many lives have been destroyed for non-violent issues. People that are sent to jail have police records. We have got to change that. Our job is to keep people out of jail, not in jailSanders previously called on President Obama to take executive action to curtail certain tax breaks like a loophole that allows private prisons to avoid corporate income taxes by claiming that they make money from rent:
Criminal justice reform has become a prominent part of the 2016 Democratic presidential candidates’ platforms, with long shot hopeful Jim Webb, a former senator from Virginia, focusing on the problem during his campaign’s kick-off earlier this summer, current frontrunner Hillary Clinton devoting her first policy speech of the campaign to mass incarceration, and Sanders tackling the particular issue of for-profit prisons throughout his campaign. Back in May, Sanders explained the inefficacy and injustice of the practice:
China is a nation that is 3 or 4 times larger than us population wise, it is an authoritarian country Communist country, and we have far more people behind bars than does China. And what we do in our jails is we run a great educational system, we educate people how to be even better criminals. So it seems to me that rather than spending huge amounts of money on jails and on private corporations who are incentivized to keep people in jail, it might make a lot more sense to spend money on job training and education so that people do not end up in jail in the first place.
According to the ACLU, 16 percent of federal inmates and 6 percent of state prison inmates are housed in private facilities.
On the Republican side, Florida Senator Marco Rubio holds strong financial ties to the private prison industry with lucrative campaign donations from the nation’s second-largest for-profit prison company. Rubio’s ties to the industry have drawn scrutiny, including a petition calling on the presidential aspirant to “stop accepting campaign donation’s from the for-profit prison industry in exchange for favorable treatment.”
Read it, pleaseQuote:
Originally Posted by Black Heart
Careful!Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Heart
That's doesn't fit the TDMA Narrative...:chitown:
I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by panama hat