Hometown: South East Michigan
Home country: United States
Member since: Tue Jul 27, 2004, 01:19 PM
Number of posts: 10,559
Hometown: South East Michigan
Home country: United States
Member since: Tue Jul 27, 2004, 01:19 PM
Number of posts: 10,559
- 2016 (102)
- 2015 (17)
- 2014 (9)
- 2013 (22)
- 2012 (10)
- Older Archives
A current talking point from Team Hillary is that her email situation was harmless. THIS IS NOT TRUE. She literally endangered the lives of National Security Assets (also known as "our spy people") in some of the most dangerous areas of the world.
Hillary was receiving inappropriate information from a Clinton Foundation employee who had no security clearance, but had somehow gained access to what appears to be reports from our intelligence community. Instead of reporting the security breaches, she encouraged the flow of his information on non-secure equipment.
The Clinton Foundation (a supposed charitable organization) employee was Sidney Blumenthal, and he was hacked by Guccifer, who promptly posted the following emails on March 13, 2013 for the world to see.
There are 29 screen shots from 4 email chains. None of them belonged on the Internet.
September 12, 2012: Classification Level CONFIDENTIAL
Yes, you read that correctly: "SOURCE: Sources with direct access to the Libyan National Transitional Council, as well as the highest levels of European Governments, and Western Intelligence and security services." But let's spell it out even more - from the email:
During the afternoon of September 11, 2012 new interim President of Libya Mohammed Yussef el Magariaf spoke in private with senior advisors, including the members of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, to discuss the attacks by demonstrators on U.S. missions in Tripoli and Benghazi. According to a sensitive source...
How many people were in the room fitting that description? How easy did this make it to find our spy guy? And I am sure the "comments" made it even easier to figure out who our spy was, for those who were there!
Oh, and here is the Wikileaks link where Hillary forwarded the whole thing to Robert Russo at the State Department for printing. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12144 Despite the pink background and Comic Sans font, this was a legitimate hack. BONUS: Guccifer has been extradited and reached a plea deal with an agreement to "testify" about what he knows.
But wait! There's more!
October 6, 2012: Classification Level: CONFIDENTIAL
Yes, it looks like the same source. "SOURCE: Sources with direct access to the Libyan National Transitional Council, as well as the highest levels of European Governments, and Western Intelligence and security services." And yes, it's real. Here's the Wikileaks link from where Hillary asked Jacob Sullivan at State to circulate it. https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12371
December 10, 2012: Classification Level: CONFIDENTIAL
Same sources: "SOURCE: Sources with direct access to the Libyan National Transitional Council, as well as the highest levels of European Governments, and Western Intelligence and security services." And Wikileaks confirms: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/16625
This last one isn't in Wikileaks because it happened AFTER she left office, but honestly, it makes me a little sick. You see, in addition to the now standard "SOURCE: Sources with direct access to the Libyan National Transitional Council, as well as the highest levels of European Governments, and Western Intelligence and security services." it also comes with a caveat that looks to be lifted directly from the intelligence report that Sidney Blumenthal had no business being able to get.
"THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION COMES FROM EXTREMELY SENSITIVE SOURCES AND SHOULD BE HANDLED WITH CARE."
Yes, you read that right: "Source Comment: Speaking on condition of absolute secrecy" - which everyone probably understood meant "get my report posted on the Internet", right?
I wonder if our source is still alive, or if there is another nameless star at Langley?
So the next time someone says "she didn't intentionally endanger national security", or says something like "no harm, no foul" please remember this post. We will never know the identity of the sources who risked their lives to get intelligence to our country, or what harm was done to our efforts because they were "burned" by Hillary Clinton's dereliction of duty in protecting national security intelligence because the people charged with those tasks cannot reveal the cost of her failure to follow the rules.
I don't know the players in these emails, but the people who were there do. This was CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE for a reason, and every person reading this post knows it, and most of us don't have security clearance training.
Oh, and the site hosting the photos is the "Russian Times".
I end this post with gratitude and appreciation for those who risk their lives on behalf of my country. I will await the report from the FBI to determine whether Hillary Clinton's actions were criminal in nature, but as far as I am concerned her actions make her unfit to lead the alphabet soup people who follow the rules regardless of convenience - the FBI, NSA, CIA and DOJ in particular, but also our military.
I salute those people with gratitude and offer a for those who gave their lives in service to our country.
Thank you for reading.
Posted by IdaBriggs | Thu Jun 2, 2016, 05:53 PM (0 replies)
I go there so you don't have to! And yes, this is from the investigative reporter duo I have shared from before -- please feel free to "Trash Thread" if source offends, but keep in mind this team is consistently "scooping" on this topic...
Intel source: IG report ups pressure on DOJ to seek criminal charges against Clinton, FOX News, June 1, 2016
The recently released State Department inspector general report, which found Hillary Clinton broke government rules with her personal email use, increases "the likelihood and pressure" for the Justice Department to pursue criminal charges, an intelligence source familiar with the FBI investigation told Fox News.
"It is very harmful to her and increases the likelihood and pressure on DOJ to indict," said the source, who was not authorized to speak on the record. "(The IG report) is not evidence in itself, but it clears up confusion (about) Department of State rules and makes the IG a witness, and the people they interviewed, to her computer antics being done without permission."
The ongoing FBI criminal probe -- investigating Clinton's emails practices as secretary of state -- is focused on whether the more than 2,100 classified emails discovered on her server constitute a violation of federal code, including the Espionage Act’s 18 USC 793, known as the "gross negligence" statute. FBI Director James Comey plans to make a recommendation based on the evidence, and if the findings merit criminal charges, the decision to prosecute ultimately rests with Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
The 83-page inspector general's report, released last week, concluded that Clinton and her team consistently broke government rules for email and record-keeping. The decision to use a personal, unsecured server exclusively for government business had the effect of moving classified information outside secure government channels.
<more at link>
Okay, so the BAD NEWS is that all of the folks involved in the investigation know exactly what the Inspector General's report means (as in, evidence of wrongdoing), and the "gross negligence" statute doesn't require intent/just stupidity. (For more discussion on this, search for posts by leveymg who explains things like a law professor. )
But there is GOOD NEWS, too!
Asked about the conflict between the IG report's findings and Clinton's continued insistence that her practices were in line with her predecessors’, the source noted the candidate’s press releases and media interviews on the issue “don’t count,” legally speaking, in determining whether false statements were made: “They can be used to show a pattern of deceit but not the basis of a charge."
Yeah for Hillary! Lying to the public is not a crime!
Posted by IdaBriggs | Thu Jun 2, 2016, 02:35 PM (6 replies)
Thanks to the wonders of the Internet, nothing truly goes away.
#1: The author, Frank Huguanard, is NOT a credentialed journalist. He also provides no source for the biggest part of his story, specifically detailing out what the FBI is actually going to do.
Hillary Clinton to be Indicted on Federal Racketeering Charges, May 29, 2016: https://archive.is/bERJ6#selection-1599.0-1623.205
James Comey and The FBI will present a recommendation to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, that includes a cogent argument that the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors to individuals, corporations and even governments both foreign and domestic.
“The New York Times examined Bill Clinton’s relationship with a Canadian mining financier, Frank Giustra, who has donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and sits on its board. Clinton, the story suggests, helped Giustra’s company secure a lucrative uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan and in return received “a flow of cash” to the Clinton Foundation, including previously undisclosed donations from the company’s chairman totaling $2.35 million.” -- Bloomberg Politics
Initially, Comey had indicated that the investigation into Hillary’s home brewed email server was to be concluded by October of 2015. However, as more and more evidence in the case has come to light, this initial date kept being pushed back as the criminal investigation has expanded well beyond violating State Department regulations to include questions about espionage, perjury and influence peddling.
Here’s what we do know. Tens of millions of dollars donated to the Clinton Foundation was funneled to the organization through a Canadian shell company which has made tracing the donors nearly impossible. Less than 10% of donations to the Foundation has actually been released to charitable organizations and $2M that has been traced back to long time Bill Clinton friend Julie McMahon (aka The Energizer). When the official investigation into Hillary’s email server began, she instructed her IT professional to delete over 30,000 emails and cloud backups of her emails older than 30 days at both Platte River Networks and Datto, Inc. The FBI has subsequently recovered the majority, if not all, of Hillary’s deleted emails and are putting together a strong case against her for attempting to cover up her illegal and illicit activities.
<more at link>
Although many links are provided to "back up" his assertions (see below), "psychic intuition" is simply not a credible source for the portrayal of "insider knowledge" of what the Director of the FBI is going to do. At the end of the day, this is an opinion piece about what the author thinks will happen.
I did a little "Google" on the man, and he honestly seems nice enough. Like most of the people here on DU, he seems very interested in politics. He also apparently has a green thumb with heirloom tomatoes -- these plants are HUGE!
But he really isn't a credible source about the FBI or the DOJ activity beyond what is already being reported on the Internet.
#2: I had to look around to verify this guy wasn't credible, because I would not be surprised if the FBI does go for a RICO charge.
And that goes right to the heart of the problem with viewing Hillary Clinton as trustworthy. Between the never ending lies and deliberate attempts to confuse people (email accounts are not the same thing as private servers), and the fact the Clintons went from (per Hillary) "dead broke" to "mega rich" faster than his pension and her salary could reasonably account for, plus her laughably non-credible "inspirational speaking" career, she is not seen by a large percentage of voters as a person of integrity. I am hoping the FBI gives a nice press conference proclaiming her innocence of any form of wrong doing, but my own life experience does not find that scenario plausible.
And no, it's not "decades of right wing attacks" -- it is constant BAD JUDGMENT and cringeworthy STUPID lying. Why make a production of handing over 50,000 pages of printed emails unless you are trying to either be an ass or cover something up? Just put it on a stick, and let the recipient kill the trees, and maybe send an apology note for not having left the "work emails at work", too.
But she didn't, and now the entire Party is in an uproar because the best fundraisers we have are scandal magnets, and a large portion of the population would not be surprised at a criminal indictment.
The bar for acceptable behavior has officially been lowered.
And one of the worst things is how this election cycle is tainting the reputation of the rest of the party. I literally paused on his last two sentences --
Yes, that would be a reasonable plot twist. And that scares me!
Maybe politics has always been like this - back room deals with slush funds for one candidate, and questionable tactics employed to keep the voters in a frenzy of hope for promises that can't be kept. I don't want to be cynical, but this guy's theories don't sound as far fetched as they used to, once upon a time, before the Internet....
But I am going to continue to await the FBI report. Hillary's word is just not good enough
Links from Article NOTE: All mainstream.
Clinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations, Bloomberg Politics, May 13, 2016: https://archive.is/rknnm
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal, The New York Times, March 18, 2016: https://archive.is/crhPw
State Dept. watchdog: Clinton violated email rules, Politico, May 27, 2016: https://archive.is/nXWhW
Employee at Clinton's email hosting company feared cover-up, Politico, April 3, 2016: https://archive.is/Ahdqi
Unbeknownst to Clinton, IT firm had emails stored on cloud; now in FBI’s hands, McClatchy DC October 6, 2015 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article37968711.html#storylink=cpy
18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material, Cornell University Law School, September 1, 2015: https://archive.is/pp4Mj
18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information, Cornell University Law School, July 13, 2015: https://archive.is/S6c5J
Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements, Office of Inspector General, May 2016: http://static.politico.com/f3/9b/19d29ab14abeb4a30ca2975f1e6c/oig-report.pdf
What we know about the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, Politifact, May 12, 2016: https://archive.is/WYja6
Posted by IdaBriggs | Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:06 PM (30 replies)
The text of this question will be publicly available after it has been reviewed and answered by a DU Administrator. Please be aware that sometimes messages are not answered immediately. Thank you for your patience. --The DU Administrators
Posted by IdaBriggs | Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:07 AM (0 replies)
of Hillary's INDEFENSIBLE BAD JUDGMENT.
The nonsense argument that "nothing bad happened" is OBSCENE because the members of the Intelligence Community CANNOT TELL US about anything BAD that resulted from the Secretary of State's email being compromised without endangering national security.
If they do know about "assets lost" (that means "people spying on our behalf"), they can't reveal it. If they do know about missions that went south, again, they can't reveal it.
They can't say whether Russia or China have copies of all of Hillary's emails, or only the ones Guccifer posted when he hacked into Blumenthal's account. We know Blumenthal had stuff he had no business having, and names were named. We know conversations were repeated when only a handful of people were in the room, and the people there increased their chances of figuring out "who was passing information to the Americans" just from emails on Wikileaks.
But we will never KNOW if our people died in our service due to carelessness, because our people won't further risk compromising National Security so they can say "j'accuse!" to the woman whose poor decision making may or may not have played a role in whatever happened -- or didn't.
It is disingenuous to say "nothing happened" when the only people who can confirm that for truth are bound to silence in defense of this country.
We don't KNOW and Team Hillary is counting on them to stay silent for love of country.
So please, STOP with the "no harm done" bullshit. The rules were intended to protect not only this country, but the people who work to defend it.
She broke the rules. Unless you are willing to put your bones and blood on the line, stop pretending increasing their risk doesn't matter.
It's ignorant, and embarrassing, and shames us all.
They matter. She knew better. Their lives matter.
Posted by IdaBriggs | Tue May 31, 2016, 10:55 PM (47 replies)
Hillary Clinton has come under renewed scrutiny over her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state. Last week the State Department’s inspector general released its report after investigating the matter. The report concluded that Clinton did not follow the requirements for handling records and should not have used a private server for department emails. Clinton’s critics were quick to say it underscores a lack of trustworthiness. Her defenders say she did little more than make a mistake by using a private server and there’s nothing in the inspector general’s report that’s very damaging. Diane and her guests discuss the continuing controversy over Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Brian Fallon, spokesman for the Clinton campaign
Eric Lichtblau reporter, The New York Times
Jonathan Turley professor of public interest law, The George Washington University Law School
Hilary Rosen Democratic strategist; managing director, SKDKnickerbocker, a political consulting and PR firm; and a CNN contributor
Okay, these are my notes written for you guys while listening. Feel free to listen yourself to clarify. Enjoy!
Brian Fallon spins as hard as he can, but sounds stupid. "She printed out a bunch of emails, and she answers questions, and Donald Trump is scary!" Diane Rehmes actually holds him to the questions, and makes it obvious he doesn't answer, especially "why didn't she do an interview with the State Inspector General?" The "because DOJ review" sounds weak and he means "FBI interview".
Turley is really good and points out she would have no way of knowing what Powell did in 2001-2005 while Rice didn't use ANY in 2005-2009, Lichtblau says "the IG report contradicts what she has said for the last year", Rosen says "no harm/no foul" and lies about the classification stuff. Turley says National Security concerns were egregious; he's had classification since Reagan years, and smacks Rosen's lies down HARD. He also had clearance during Hillary's tenure, so he knows the excuses are stupid. Lichtblau says the "no classification stamp isn't going to be a get out of jail free card". Rosen relies on the fact the Intelligence Community can't publicly complain about any damage her mistakes have caused. Then their is an argument about whether there is a trust issue - Rosen says she's admired, and Turley calls out the bad polls, spins and "errors in judgment". He also thinks she's been compromised by the Russians! Lichtblau talks about Guccifer and hacking attempts, along with Hillary refusing to go to a ".gov" account.
1st Caller: Very upset about "classified documents marked and unmarked' as a load of crap; he has two decades of experience with a Top Secret clearance" and never saw "retroactive classification" so he knows it's spin. Rosen says again "no harm/no foul" and Turley points out the Russians wouldn't be publicly bragging if they did. Allegations are there may have been "jumping the gap" between the "secure vs non-secure" systems, and that is so egregious -- "you're gone!"
Someone writes in saying they are okay with everything because "poor Hillary wants privacy". Then Rosen says Hillary has been using this email account since Bill left office, which we all know is a lie. Lichtblau points out "red herring" because no one cares about her personal emails; it's the work ones that are a problem. Then the FBI Director stuff gets brought up -- nothing new. Comey gets accolades for being trustworthy. The State Department was looking at procedures, and everything was clear. This will impact the criminal investigation.
2nd Caller: everybody knew she was using a private email, and it only became a big deal when she started running for president. Lichtblau says "untrue!" It was kept to her inner circle, and the damming part is when two staff were told "never speak of this again". Rosen says people should have said something to her in person.
Tweeter: how is it going to impact her in California or in the General? Answer: it depends what the DOJ says.
3rd Caller: Trump and Bernie are getting traction because of the trust issues and how she keeps lying. Rosen says "I don't understand accusations of her not being responsive."
4th Caller: 13 minutes of Hillary lying video is a sound byte against her. She's a woman, and being overly scrutinized. Poor Hillary!
Turley says stuff Hillary says is UNTRUE. He gives examples. Diane Rehmes says it's true she changes positions. Rosen says she's a lesbian and she doesn't like that Hillary is being held to account for "twenty years ago" and plus Hillary is smart.
Lichtblau says he'll stay away from policy, but he can say that Hillary's story has changed about email - aggressively "did no wrong" went to "everybody did it" to "maybe I made a mistake" to "aren't we all just sick of it?"
5th Caller: She doesn't handle these issues well; she just didn't want to have a trail. Trustworthy and character matter - voters need to know whether illegal stuff happened to disqualify her.
Turley says "intent to harm the nation" doesn't matter about INTENT because you don't play with classified information on a non-secure system. He also says Hillary is hurting herself by using "legally nonsensical" arguments ("it wasn't classified at the time") which just infuriate investigators who know better. Rosen feels sorry for the people at the campaign; the media is being mean when she needs to give the investigators space because "voters don't care - at least Democratic primary voters".
It ends with Bernie's quote about "let's forget about the damn emails" taken out of context.
It's not going away. Told you so.
Posted by IdaBriggs | Tue May 31, 2016, 09:20 PM (8 replies)
I am appealing. 84 Recs, but now it has been disappeared from the Greatest Page (posted at 10:17 am this morning.)
ENOUGH! MY *PATRIOTISM* TRUMPS PARTY LOYALTY!!!
I am pretty confident I know why:
ASK THE ADMINS:
On shutting down GDP with a date certain 05/31/2016 @ 8:53 am
It seems premature to declare that the primary will end at the last vote, June 14.
Given the liabilities with Hillary and Bernie's renewed declaration that he will take it to the convention and the unresolved FBI investigation, it is plausible/possible/likely that it will not be finally resolved until a vote on the convention floor.
And there will be countless stories and continuing news between June 14 and July 24, perhaps even major events that turn the race upside down.
For the sake of clarity, to the extent Bernie continues the race beyond June 14 up to and including the convention, where will the primary discussions occur?
Further, discussions of the very real FBI criminal investigation into Hillary's server and its use cannot be construed as "attacking the presumptive nominee," would you agree?
SKINNER REPLY @ 2:36 pm
It all depends on how you do it.
Thoughtful discussions of Hillary Clinton's private email server and how it might affect the campaign: Fine.
Using Hillary Clinton's private email server as a club in order to beat her down: Not fine.
My thread was locked at 4:05 pm.
Posted by IdaBriggs | Tue May 31, 2016, 04:34 PM (18 replies)
And yes, I am using ALL CAPS in that subject line, because I have SERIOUSLY had ENOUGH of the snide obnoxious comments coming from certain members of this board who don't want to have any SUBSTANTIVE discussions about HILLARY CLINTON'S JUDGMENT!!!
I am currently a Bernie supporter, but for three decades I have voted for Democratic presidential candidates. I am not stupid. I know Trump is a disaster-waiting-to-happen...
And Hillary Clinton's EPIC BAD DECISION MAKING scares me as much as Donald Trump!!!
She supported the Iraq War, and didn't hold the REPUBLICAN administration accountable for LYING us into it (despite that duty as "loyal opposition in a two party system"). She was on the wrong side of marriage equality. The policies she advocated and implemented while Secretary of State created more chaos and death world wide than doing nothing, and that doesn't include planetary environmental concerns created with her promoting "fracking" as a global export.
But it is the "email and private server" situation that has me saying ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NO!!! because it demonstrates the CORROSIVE EFFECT her personal beliefs and management style would have on the government transparency necessary for democracy in this country:
Per the spin, Hillary Clinton valued her PRIVACY and (maybe?) CONVENIENCE more than not only POSSIBLE dangers to NATIONAL SECURITY, but also FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT LAWS.
PRIVACY and CONVENIENCE: Those are not the actions of a person I am willing to make "Commander In Chief" of people who have agreed to put their LIVES IN DANGER in service to this country.
IGNORING RULES and COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS: Those are not the actions of a person I am willing to put in charge of the NSA, CIA, FBI and DOJ, where ETHICS AND INTEGRITY are absolute requirements.
THREATENING and IGNORING THOSE WHO SPEAK "TRUTH TO POWER": Those are not the actions of a person I am willing to put in charge of ANYBODY. When subject matter experts are ignored or people FEAR coming forward as whistleblowers or when protections like "Inspector General" positions are intentionally left vacant or when people who catch government officials in wrongdoing either end up in jail or have to flee the country, I want those issues FIXED, and I don't mean by silencing the reports - I mean FIXED so that the next people in line don't decide not to report problems.
LYING: Life is too short to spend time parsing the words of someone whose words can't be trusted. The willingness to sacrifice the loyalty of supporters because of a fear of TRANSPARENCY while avoiding PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and obfuscating on issues is completely unacceptable. Every Hillary supporter on this board who believed her when she said she was "following the rules" and "everybody else had private servers" is owed an apology from her because believing her lies made them look like idiots.
SERVICE TO OTHERS: This is a Representative Democracy. The people we elect are there in service to others. The "Federal Records Act" and "FOIA" are intended to provide institutional knowledge and historical information. There is no question Hillary Clinton, for unknown personal reasons, was working to make sure the records she and her staff created were not part of that public record. That is a Red Flag they are doing something wrong. Obviously, one needs to double check "ignorance and stupidity" are not involved, but after that, "judgment, ethics and behavior" follow, and FAIL in those categories is written all over this episode.
The State Department is NOT a "PRIVATE BUSINESS" - it is a government department intended to benefit the entire country, and "we the people" are the owners. Every citizen in this country has a right to know what is going on there both currently and historically, with obvious caveats for diplomacy and national security temporarily in place. The same concerns apply to the office of President. Knowledge is Power, and Power in this country belongs to the People.
I am a Democrat, but I am a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN FIRST. I will ALWAYS put the NEEDS of my country over the WANTS of my party, and if "my party" wants me to do anything differently, I will bolt out of the room so fast, it will make your head spin, and then I will take any treasonous bastard who tries to enable such corruption of Democratic principles down as well.
We are currently in "Primary Season" and those of us raising these LEGITIMATE CONCERNS about whether or not ANY CANDIDATE should be allowed the HONOR AND PRIVILEGE of leading this country are doing our PATRIOTIC DUTY AS CITIZENS. It is my privilege to vote, my responsibility to be informed, and my duty to use good judgment.
Hillary or Bernie or Trump or Other: I am not going to support a candidate for President who can't be trusted to safeguard and protect the lives, rights and freedoms of our citizens, our country, and the principles of our democracy.
I am a Democrat. That is what Democrats DO.
And anybody who says differently can go perform inappropriate anatomical acts on themselves.
Posted by IdaBriggs | Tue May 31, 2016, 10:17 AM (87 replies)
Here is the story...and it is long!
So, I am one of the many people who already knew Hillary has been lying through her teeth about her email and private server situation before the "official formal confirmation" via the State Departments Inspector General report came out last week, but honestly, not until mid-March of this year.
Honestly, I had been tuning out "email stuff" along with anything related to "Benghazi" because I thought it was Republican whining. Granted, they hadn't been whining about her performance prior to Benghazi, but I *assumed* they just were starting things up again because maybe they were bored or something. Frankly, 2013 was still too early for me to believe they were gearing up against Hillary as a potential presidential candidate -- way too early, right? In hindsight, I realize they were doing what they were supposed to as "loyal opposition in a two party system" but it is still annoying sometimes, right?
So when I read a thread entitled so here's what we know from the newest dump of HRC emails. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511509720) on March 16, 2016 I was really surprised. I did not know about Sid Blumenthal, or him being banned from the White House, or his business contacts in Libya, or him getting paid by the Clinton Foundation!
Then I read Clinton Foundations biggest beneficiaries are the Clintons (http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511513340) on March 17, and my suspicions grew.
I started following threads here at DU on the topic, and began putting the pieces together. It was extremely upsetting. I have a thirty year IT background, and the more I read, the worse it looked.
IT Trivia: a "personal email account" is a different thing than a "private server in a basement"; pretending they are the same and "all the other Secretaries did it" is a Big Red Not Telling The Truth Flag.
Finally, on April 4, 2016 I wrote Hillary's Email Scandal for Non-Techy People (http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511643968) which hit the Greatest Page with 101 recs. I really need to update that thread. Sigh.
The more I read, the worse it got. The FBI was keeping a pretty tight lid on things, but leaks were getting out via reputable sources, and everything kept getting confirmed.
-- Her IT guy was given immunity.
-- The hacker was extradited.
-- The law was excruciatingly clear.
By April 22, 2016 I was actually having to chew on some crow when I discovered actual reporting from two FOX News reporters. The world had officially gone mad! I shared the leaks here on a thread titled Hillary People - Trash this Thread; Others - Consider it FYI (http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511810912) with appropriate caveats, and it received 131 recs.
I still had policy issues with Hillary (I won't link to those posts, but they are in my journal). Meanwhile, DUer PaulThompson of the famous "911 Timeline" began working on a similar project for the "Hillary Clinton Email Scandal" and reading it turned me officially wrathful.
I wrote She's SUCH A LIAR. And she thinks people are STUPID. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511880685) on May 2, 2016 and it hit 226 recs. It should also be updated. Sigh.
My "speaking truth to DU" came with a price: a new level of "alert stalking" was created especially for me and shared in the Hillary Group. Please alert this post to the administrators. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1107122402) was written the same day, and received 15 recs. Other posts of mine began to be alerted with regularity; most failed, but today my transparency page shows. I am okay with that -- none are abusive or inappropriate, although my scorn for the "corporate whore" nonsense was particularly biting.
But let me also hasten to add a very good thing in this story: my appreciation for this community, which I shared in a very special post on May 8, 2016 My 10,000 Post & Almost 12 years on DU! (http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511924563). This is a good place!
I've really distracted from the point of this story, haven't I? How those lazy bastard FBI folk cost me $5 and a pizza? Well, it goes back to Hillary. You see, the more I read, the more convinced I became that there is no way in Hell this woman is going to be our nominee because I think the FBI is going to recommend she be indicted. All the dates I was reading kept sayin "May" so I put my money where my mouth was, and made a few "fifty cent" bets that she would either be indicted or out "due to personal problems" before Memorial Day, with the proceedings going to DU. Oh, and the same bet with a dear friend for some awesome local pizza.
And I was wrong!!!
Those folks are still doinking around -- they've interviewed the aides, done a plea deal with the hacker, granted immunity to the IT guy, and even have the official report from the State Inspector General - why are they taking so long?
So, as an honorable person, I have now donated my $5 to DU and will be making my "pizza payoff plans". It's the right thing to do, and DU is totally worth it.
I still think the indictment is on its way. I think it would have been good for everyone to have their desks cleared before the holiday, but I can be sympathetic about a nice long weekend break with the family before the shit storm hits. Plus, I think the "gently breaking that Hillary has been lying" strategy with the State Inspector Generals report is a good one; the media has been propping her as the Annoited One since last year, and the shift is going to be painful for many people.
So yes, I still believe in the "Indictment Fairy" as some choose to call it. As I said earlier today,
"I *expect* her to be indicted; I will be *shocked* if she isn't. <snip> If the FBI does indict on RICO, I will actually be relieved because it will calm me down about "separate rules for the rich" and make me feel safer about being protected from criminal enterprises in the government."
I am still supporting Bernie Sanders, and trusting the owners of this site will figure out a way to maintain the community they have built while remaining true to their mission of supporting Democrats. I will not be happy if I end up banned and I am personally clueless as to how they will be able to play the "don't say anything bad about Hillary" game when there is going to be nothing except bad news about her until this situation is over. I am sure they have already discussed the headaches they anticipate, and I am somewhat cheered by the fact that is not my headache to deal with -- DU is not a democracy; it is a message board.
And despite my disappointment in the FBI not just finishing it up already, I am okay with DU getting my $5.
But if the FBI and DOJ drop the hammer this week, those guys are seriously going to owe me some pizza because the good stuff is NOT cheap!
Posted by IdaBriggs | Mon May 30, 2016, 01:34 PM (90 replies)
I don't buy it. I've seen the woman talk (granted, in debates and on YouTube) and she just isn't that good.
I've heard inspirational speakers before. I've even paid for their books: Jack Canfield, Stephen Covey, Tony Robbins, John Grey, Wayne Dwyer, Deepak Chopra, Zig Ziglar, Mary Morrissey, Oprah Winfrey - the list is long. These people are inspiring in their wow! factor. I've heard the Dali Lama and Pope Francis can also give an amazing talk...
And none of them get a quarter million dollars for an hour long talk.
So, please understand, when I ask about "Hillary's Transcripts" for her "Inspirational Talks" to her very specific (Wall Street Only Rich People) audiences, it is because I am being a bit cynical.
At one level, I want to know what she was saying to them that made them happy to pay her that much money multiple times. I can only assume she was using "word of mouth" advertising, because I've never seen an advertisement discussing the advantages of what she'll bring to a meeting (it's called a "one sheet" in the business) and I would love to know "the secrets" she shared: was it how to attain wealth? Personal power? Leadership skills? Relationship advice? And what about the listeners? Do they have any testimonials they want to share about the transformative experience they all shared?
So, please, show us the transcripts!
But the deeper truth is more cynical:
I don't believe they were paying for her speeches.
Yes, I said it: I think it was protection money and some pre-bribery for access to power. I think it was a thin veneer of respectability on corruption.
And I think everyone knows it, but right now, no one can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt - we just know that she's just not that good at being an inspirational speaker, so the speeches were really something else.
I'd really like to see those transcripts to be proven wrong.
But I never will, and everyone knows it.
Posted by IdaBriggs | Mon May 30, 2016, 08:20 AM (30 replies)