Hometown: South East Michigan
Home country: United States
Member since: Tue Jul 27, 2004, 12:19 PM
Number of posts: 10,559
Hometown: South East Michigan
Home country: United States
Member since: Tue Jul 27, 2004, 12:19 PM
Number of posts: 10,559
- 2016 (102)
- 2015 (17)
- 2014 (9)
- 2013 (22)
- 2012 (10)
- Older Archives
It's a line in every article about her. Those with legal experience suspect the Grand Jury has already been convened (one of her IT guys got immunity in March and the hacker just made an "in exchange for testimony" deal), and it's been leaked that others are being targeted, too.
Every time she says "no, the FBI hasn't contacted me" I roll my eyes. It's disingenuous because they are talking to her lawyer, who is also in danger of being in his own world of hurt because she gave him an electronic copy of all of the emails, and at least 22 of them were Super Bad -- hopefully he didn't leave the stick laying around the office.
Plus, why not pick up a phone, and schedule the interview yourself? Why *let* it drag on?
And now that we know that the "second guy who helped with the server" has already racked up hundreds of thousands in legal fees (being paid by the Clintons at the moment), plus her staff, and Blumethal looked like he has already struck a deal to me, the Washington chatter is being reflected on the cable news shows. They have all turned on her simultaneously. Not even a poorly faked anti-gay smear on Bernie was able to deflect this one -- everyone is now bracing to explain to the public why the candidate they've been propping up might be facing criminal charges.
I think Comey is going to make his bones on this case by cleaning up some serious corruption. I'm good with that.
Meanwhile, the ongoing FBI investigation continues....
Posted by IdaBriggs | Sun May 29, 2016, 07:32 AM (87 replies)
As I said in my post:
"There were 193 Democratic members of the House, 47 sitting Senators and 21 Governors to pick from who don't make the Republicans want to grab their pitchforks. Why Hillary?"
With literally HUNDREDS of Democrats in leadership positions in Congress and a nice solid chunk with state wide Executive experience, only TWO - a former Governor from Maryland and an Indepent turned Democratic Senator from Vermont - even stepped forward to be considered, while Hillary (former 8 year Senator, former Secretary of State, and "inspirational speaker" by trade) opened the race with over 500 super delegate votes before the first debate.
That is NOT "the people" picking - that is rigging the process. We know this by pure evidence, because without the back room deals, a dozen Republicans threw their hats into the ring and battled it out. Their nominees might have been whackadoodles, but they actually represented the people of the Republican Party from the uber rich to the bad businessmen to the Ayn Rand fans to the religious lunatics.
Their field actually started with both men, women and multiple minorities. Meanwhile, the Democrats - the party that actually supports minorities and is currently led by an African American man - fielded three white people, with one of them being Jewish. No African Americans, no Latinos, no LGBT - apparently, in those areas we have not cultivated leadership?
And then the money: in AUGUST of 2015, still months before the first Democratic Primary debate on CNN on October 13, and the first Primaries in February, THIRTY-THREE state party chairs entered into a "Hillary for Victory" fundraising scheme that is no less than a money laundering scheme designed to circumvent election fundraising laws. You can read more about it here: http://www.npr.org/2015/12/23/460762853/how-hillary-clinton-could-ask-a-single-donor-for-over-700-000 That is NOT the people deciding - that type of soft money game was responsible for corruption cases until it was made illegal, but the Supreme Court gutted those voter protections in 2014 and Hillary AND the DNC promptly took advantage of it, to the point where all of the reforms Obama put in place were reversed.
As for the debates: SIX were scheduled during this Primary, as opposed to FIFTEEN in 2004 and TWENTY-FIVE in 2008. Debates and the discussion analysis that follow provide an introduction for unknown candidates to introduce themselves to the American public. Hillary already had uber levels of name recognition to the non-political junkies as "former First Lady" while the other candidates were still struggling with only regional VIP status.
The people did NOT pick Hillary Clinton; she was PICKED for us. She is at best a default candidate, with polls consistently saying that given other Not-Crazy options, they want someone else.
So I go back to my original question: who arrogantly thought that putting one of the most divisive and disliked politicians up for President, and then saying "ha! ha!" to the Republican base, was going to be good for the country?
Posted by IdaBriggs | Sat May 28, 2016, 07:05 AM (1 replies)
I have spent too much time on DU today, and now I can't sleep. I watched the "Bernie Sanders and Bill Maher Interview" on YouTube earlier, and was struck by the pure class Bernie Sanders was displaying when it came to Hillary's Email Scandal. Bill invited him to comment, and Bernie deflected with "voters aren't interested in seeing us attack each other - they want us to talk about the things that matter to their lives: healthcare, education, housing, income inequality - and the ideas we have for fixing these problems." I'm paraphrasing, but it was just totally on target. And he talked about the dangers of Trump, and how he isn't sure how to discuss issues with a man who changes his mind four times in two days, and the host pointed out the media isn't holding him accountable...and it was just a lovely interview, that made me proud this man was running for President, and that I support him.
Then I came back to DU, and there were some threads asking why Bernie was willing to be interviewed by far right people, and I smiled, because Bernie went to Liberty University, and told them what he thought, and listened to their questions, and answered them. And when Black Lives Matter activists wanted to be heard, he listened to them, too, and he engaged in dialogue, and I think he learned some things from them, too. And that made me remember how, in the interview, Bernie talked about having friends and colleagues in the Senate who are Republicans who AREN'T CRAZY (like Trump is), and he spoke of them respectfully.
And all of these things were bubbling around, and I realize that Bernie is really interested in bringing people together; that he's done that his entire Congressional career by liking people on both sides of the aisle, finding out where they could work together for the greater good, and listening to them. People in Burlington (where he was Mayor) mention this about him: he listened to them about problems ranging from potholes to street lights, and then worked to solve the problems.
That is a rare skill.
Which brings me to his opposition, and a small epiphany about arrogance.
I think it can safely be said that the majority of average Republicans ACTIVELY DISLIKE Hillary Clinton. "Hating Hillary" is an actual industry that is profitable, and has been for (according to her supporters) over twenty-five years. Any critiscm of her in media has to be vetted because there are so many "banned" outlets who are deemed to therefore be untrustworthy due to the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" (tm), and even legitimate concerns are casually dismissed by her supporters as "simply the product of years of smears".
Ignoring the fact this creates a danger of ignoring actual issues, why would the Democratic Party pick someone who half the country hates? Yes, they "hate" President Obama, but the level of vitriol aimed at either Clinton is probably ten times higher.
So why subject half the country to a possible President who is so despised even before the first vote is cast, with the added bonus of "vote for her or the crazy guy destroys the world"?
There is an ARROGANCE to the idea that making half the country "bow to Hated Hillary" is acceptable, or will lesson the divisive nature of our politics or promote tolerance or mutual respect for "loyal opposition".
So, why was she picked? She is viewed more negatively than favorably, has zero policy stands to inspire, and unbelievable amounts of baggage, including an FBI investigation.
There were 193 Democratic members of the House, 47 sitting Senators and 21 Governors to pick from who don't make the Republicans want to grab their pitchforks. Why Hillary?
Why would the Democratic Party establishment run one of the most divisive figures in politics as the "best choice" for the Nation?
When Obama ran against McCain and Romney, I voted for him because I thought the way he wanted to solve problems was better for the country than his opponents. I believed Obama was going to look out for the voters, not the uber-rich, and I trusted him. I think he has done a fantastic job, and I want his successor to take things to the next level.
I don't trust Hillary on pretty much anything she says, and consider her to be a corrosive influence. Those are my opinions, but I keep getting back to why pick someone the other side hates?
Maybe the Democrats really want to keep losing power? What better way to destroy down ticket Dems than by inspiring turnout against a hated opponent?
Maybe the money folk think they can do more fundraising if they are a minority party?
I'm not sure, but I do not think it is respectful to any of us.
Posted by IdaBriggs | Sat May 28, 2016, 01:58 AM (11 replies)
#1: None of the talking heads are smiling about Hillary's email. @ 10:31 am (84 recs)
#2: History: Bush White House email controversy (& DU reaction) @ 3:15 pm (27 recs)
#3: New Yorker: A VERY CLINTON E-MAIL SCANDAL @ 7:52 pm (35 recs)
#4: Hillary Clinton Email Cartoons @ 8:44 pm (24 recs)
ON EDIT: And now this one at 9:02 pm!!! (29 recs)
ON EDIT2: Updated "recs" counts and added --
#6: The Arrogance of Entitlement: Hillary versus Republicans @ 2:58 am (15 recs)
I think I have spent a little too much time on DU today!
But I really appreciate everyone's support, even though I suspect this type of honor makes me a target in any upcoming purges.
In the meantime, THANK YOU, DU!!!
Posted by IdaBriggs | Fri May 27, 2016, 08:02 PM (4 replies)
Inspired by n2doc...
Posted by IdaBriggs | Fri May 27, 2016, 07:44 PM (0 replies)
A VERY CLINTON E-MAIL SCANDAL, The New Yorker, May 28, 2016
Like most political scandals, the real trouble, at least so far, is not anything Hillary Clinton actually did while in office, but how Clinton responded to the initial accusations. Clinton repeatedly maintained that the use of her private e-mail system was normal and approved by the relevant officials at the State Department. The inspector general says thatís not the case.
This Clinton scandal, like many others, including the one involving the health-care task force, has its roots in Clintonís penchant for shielding her government work from public scrutiny. The Clintons are hardly unique in this regard. As the inner workings of government have increasingly been pried open by public laws, such as the Freedom of Information Act, by the investigative machinery of Congress, and by a new generation of whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden, government officials have responded in kind. ďI donít want any risk of the personal being accessible,Ē Clinton wrote to a top aide who recommended that she begin using a State Department e-mail account.
The fact that Clinton did not fully coŲperate with the I.G. investigation (she declined to be interviewed, for example) does not inspire confidence that her Administration would be a model of transparency, but unfortunately thereís little evidence that the politicians who are the most incensed about the issue are also interested in using the episode as a way to strengthen the federal governmentís woefully inadequate commitment to open-records laws.
So this scandal is like so many that have dogged the Clintons: while itís more molehill than mountain, it does genuinely revolve around a serious issue (Clintonís commitment to transparency); her initial response was less than forthcoming; and the critics exaggerating the degree of wrongdoing have demonstrated more interest in damaging her politically than fixing the underlying government-wide problem that the e-mail imbroglio has revealed. Plus Áa change . . . .
Finally, the real danger to Clinton is not about the e-mail system itself, itís about whether she or her aides violated any laws regarding the safekeeping of classified information. That investigation was beyond the scope of the State Departmentís inspector general, and is being looked into by the F.B.I. Weíll know soon enough if itís a real or a fake scandal.
Nope. Not going away soon.
Posted by IdaBriggs | Fri May 27, 2016, 06:52 PM (37 replies)
Bush White House email controversy
The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act. Over 5 million emails may have been lost. Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove emails, leading to damaging allegations. In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.
The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee, for various communications of unknown content or purpose. The domain name is an abbreviation for "George W. Bush, 43rd" President of the United States. The server came public when it was discovered that J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, was using a gwb43.com email address to discuss the firing of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas. Communications by federal employees were also found on georgewbush.com (registered to "Bush-Cheney '04, Inc.") and rnchq.org (registered to "Republican National Committee"), but, unlike these two servers, gwb43.com has no Web server connected to it ó it is used only for email.
The "gwb43.com" domain name was publicized by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), who sent a letter to Oversight and Government Reform Committee committee chairman Henry A. Waxman requesting an investigation. Waxman sent a formal warning to the RNC, advising them to retain copies of all emails sent by White House employees. According to Waxman, "in some instances, White House officials were using nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications." The Republican National Committee claims to have erased the emails, supposedly making them unavailable for Congressional investigators.
On April 12, 2007, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel stated that White House staffers were told to use RNC accounts to "err on the side of avoiding violations of the Hatch Act, but they should also retain that information so it can be reviewed for the Presidential Records Act," and that "some employees ... have communicated about official business on those political email accounts." Stanzel also said that even though RNC policy since 2004 has been to retain all emails of White House staff with RNC accounts, the staffers had the ability to delete the email themselves.
According to a former White House official, Karl Rove used RNC-hosted addresses for roughly "95 percent" of his email.
Any "Team Players" who want to pretend that what the Republicans did was okay? Or that "private servers for government employees to use" should be the new normal?
Not a newsflash - deleting unflattering government records is a crime. Yes, Karl Rove and his cronies got away with it, which is probably why Hillary Clinton tried to pull a similar stunt, but that is the OPPOSITE OF THE BEHAVIOR that belongs in the White House.
Here are some links to how DU *used* to think about this type of nonsense:
The Too Ten Conservative Idiots List
Posted by IdaBriggs | Fri May 27, 2016, 02:15 PM (15 replies)
I have watched several video clips, and they all seem shocked and serious.
It is as if they are completely baffled that she has been lying TO THEM this whole time.
I trust my own skills at reading body language for "liars". If my instincts are screaming LIAR, I am usually right. Some people have fooled me, but that usually involves me *wanting* to believe they are telling the truth.
I could not stand Bush Junior because he reeked of LIAR. Cheney and Rove - same thing.
It bothers me when I see the same "WARNING: LYING" from Democrats I respect.
Hillary is almost as bad as Bush Junior lately -- her eyes go wide, and my heart sinks. "It was permitted," she insists, and I cringe. It makes no sense to lie about something so STUPID unless...
And I know she is untrustworthy.
I used to believe Bill Clinton. He fooled me. Now he lies, but they aren't as smooth as they used to be. It's crazy.
I still trust a few of them. Obama. Kerry. Biden. Warren. Totally Bernie.
But the ones who carry water for the Clintons - I don't trust them anymore. When my gut screams "you are not telling the truth!" I trust it.
I don't think Hillary Clinton cares about anyone but herself and her family. I think she is a liar, and I think the FBI is going to recommend she be indicted for corruption and failure to properly handle classified communications.
But no one is smiling about it.
Posted by IdaBriggs | Fri May 27, 2016, 09:31 AM (90 replies)
I know this is a new development, and I assume it has to do with the bad news for the presumptive nominee.
First reported here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027857567
Posted by IdaBriggs | Thu May 26, 2016, 11:12 AM (15 replies)
I am sitting here completely flabbergasted by Hillary Clinton supporters who do not seem to understand the devastating implications to her campaign from yesterday's State Department Inspector General Report.
The opening lines are wince worthy:
Yes, "management weaknesses" includes Albright, Rice, Powell and Clinton. And for those who are totally clueless, the Federal Records Act became federal law in 1950. But it gets better, because this report is extremely blunt:
So, in black-and-white, Hillary Clinton ignored a law she found to be inconvenient.
But was it just her? No!
Anyone surprised? Why should staff working for Hillary Clinton have to comply with Federal Records Act law? Seriously, it was inconvenient to either hit the print button or use the electronic system? Any WHY weren't they using their ".gov" accounts? Boy, do I feel better about how she will "enforce laws" from people she has taken millions of dollars in donations from -- I'm confident that she will really care about the "inconvenient laws" those people dislike, right?
For those who interested, you can download the PDF here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842460/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf
But the bottom line is this:
"The legislative branch makes laws. The executive branch enforces laws. The judicial branch decides what the law means. Each branch can only do its own job. The President is part of the executive branch. So the President does not make laws. The executive branch can only enforce law."
That is from a third grade social studies book (pg 300) published in 2009. If Hillary was unwilling to follow the law when it comes to simple Federal Records for her and her staff, she is NOT QUALIFIED to be the head of the branch that ENFORCES LAWS.
Spin it how you want -- the next scandal to taint our party is going to be the content of those emails, and whether her foolish, self indulgent behavior actually requires a criminal indictment.
Posted by IdaBriggs | Thu May 26, 2016, 10:34 AM (26 replies)