HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Bill USA » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 120 Next »

Bill USA

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PM
Number of posts: 5,706

About Me

Quotes I like: "Prediction is very difficult, especially concerning the future." "There are some things so serious that you have to laugh at them.” __ Niels Bohr Given his contribution to the establishment of quantum mechanics, I guess it's not surprising he had such a quirky of sense of humor. ......................."Deliberate misinterpretation and misrepresentation of another's position is a basic technique of (dis)information processing" __ I said that

Journal Archives

The Plot Thickens: More Trump-Bondi Allegations


The plot has thickened in the Donald Trump-Pam Bondi scandal. The New York Times reported that the $25,000 donation from his Foundation to support Bondi’s reelection (in violation of federal law) isn’t even Trump’s first brush with campaign donation violations. The Huffington Post reported that Bondi got not only the $25K from Trump–she got a deal on the Mar-a-Lago as the site for a campaign fundraiser. Cheaper than The Donald charges his campaign!

As The New York Times editorialized, “there’s little doubt they abused the public trust” and if the pay-to-play happened on their phone call, “it could be a crime.” What is coming next?

New York Times: Donald Trump’s Donation Is His Latest Brush With Campaign Fund Limits

By Steven Eder and Megan Twohey
September 6, 2016

Donald J. Trump, who has repeatedly denounced pay-to-play politics during his insurgent campaign, is now defending himself against claims that he donated $25,000 to a group supporting the Florida attorney general, Pam Bondi, to sway her office’s review of fraud allegations at Trump University.

Mr. Trump’s payment of a $2,500 penalty to the Internal Revenue Service over that 2013 campaign gift amounted to only the latest slap of his wrist in a decades-long record of shattering political donation limits and circumventing the rules governing contributions and lobbying.

In the 1980s, Mr. Trump was compelled to testify under oath before New York State officials after he directed tens of thousands of dollars to the president of the New York City Council through a myriad subsidiary companies to evade contribution limits. In the 1990s, the Federal Election Commission fined Mr. Trump for exceeding the annual limit on campaign contributions by $47,050, the largest violation in a single year. And in 2000, the New York State lobbying commission imposed a $250,000 fine for Mr. Trump’s failing to disclose the full extent of his lobbying of state legislators.

For the most part, Mr. Trump has seemed unrepentant. Testifying in 1988 about a $50,000 bank loan he had first guaranteed, and then repaid, on behalf of Andrew J. Stein’s successful campaign for New York City Council president, Mr. Trump made no bones about the move.


Ninety-Five Retired Generals and Admirals Endorse Hillary Clinton


More Than Any Recent Democratic Nominee for President

Hillary for America announced that 95 retired Generals and Admirals, including a number of 4-Star Generals, have officially endorsed Hillary Clinton for president and Commander-in-Chief. Clinton is getting the backing of more senior military service members and former officials with command and management experience than any non-incumbent Democrat due to her proven record of diplomacy and steady leadership on the world stage. She will make her case tonight at the Commander-in-Chief Forum presented by NBC and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, lacks the knowledge, stability and values to be Commander-in-Chief. According to yesterday’s media reports, Trump has received more than 400 fewer endorsements than Mitt Romney received - 88 to Romney’s 500.

Today, General Lloyd “Fig” Newton, a 4-Star General and America’s first African-American Thunderbird pilot, joined his fellow military service members and released a statement endorsing Hillary Clinton for President: “I was privileged to serve my country for 34 plus years — my entire adult life — in the United States Air Force. Growing up in South Carolina, respect for individual liberties and the right for every person to vote was taught to me at an early age and it is of the utmost importance to me today. These fundamental rights are why I served and care so deeply about our great nation. Given the challenges we face around the world today, and the rhetoric we are hearing from some at home, I feel I have a moral imperative to come forth and endorse Secretary Hillary Clinton for President. This is not about Democrat or Republican, this is about who is best qualified to lead the country in this complex world we live in. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate that has the experience, temperament, critical thinking and level-headed leadership to keep America safe and our partnerships strong. She has my vote in November.”

Hillary for America released the following list of service members who have officially endorsed: (see list in article)

Editorial Boards Denounce Trump and Bondi Illegal Pay-To-Play Scandal, Call 4 Federal Investigation

Editorial Boards Denounce Trump and Bondi Illegal Pay-To-Play Scandal, Call 4 Federal Investigation
Editorial boards from Massachusetts to Florida are sounding the alarm and calling for an investigation into the “true pay-to-play scandal” between Donald Trump and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Last week, The Washington Post revealed that Donald Trump’s Foundation violated federal tax law by donating to a group supporting Bondi’s reelection. Days after the donation, Bondi chose not to join an investigation into Trump University ripping off its students. If elected, one editorial board concluded, Trump would become America’s “briber-in-chief” and will continue to hustle the American people from the White House.

New York Daily News Editorial: Briber-in-chief: How Donald Trump gave big money to Pam Bondi, who then stopped investigating Trump University

“A true pay-to-play scandal centering on a charitable foundation, rather than manufactured innuendo, has erupted in the rancid presidential campaign. The payer and the player is that admitted buyer of politicians Donald Trump.”

New York Times Editorial: Pay to Play, Mr. Trump?

“Mr. Trump’s contribution from his family foundation to Ms. Bondi violated federal tax law barring tax-exempt charities from engaging in political activity. The Washington Post reported last week that Mr. Trump paid a $2,500 penalty to the Internal Revenue Service for the violation.”


CNN Hosts Doctor Who Hasn't Examined Clinton To Speculate She Could Have Cognitive Impairment From

...this is supposed to be a news show? M$M: what would we do for disinformation without corporate media?

CNN Hosts Doctor Who Hasn't Examined Clinton To Speculate She Could Have Cognitive Impairment From A 2012 Blood Clot

BROOKE BALDWIN (HOST): Let me pivot back to the health records, Dr. Tiffany, and ask you this. As we talked about Hillary Clinton's additional medical records to come out this week, also we're hearing from the Trump camp that we should get some more information on his own health. When people pour through that, what do you expect to learn?

DR. TIFFANY SIZEMORE: One of my concerns, actually, is -- and I want to be very blunt -- pneumonia, which she has now, and what happened in 2012 are two distinctly separate things. However, the medical problems that Hillary had in 2012 are still significant medical problems. Having a blood clot in a vein in your brain is a pretty significant issue, especially when there's been studies out that there's a small subset of people who, when they have this problem, have chronic cognitive and decision-making impairment. So I do think --

BALDWIN: But what about Trump? Sorry, I don't know if I spoke --

SIZEMORE: I'm getting there. It's OK.


SIZEMORE: I think it's difficult with Trump because we really don't know much, right? I mean, he hasn't been in the forefront. There was no video out there. Do I think that Americans have a right to kind of know the general health of who potentially could be our president to make sure they're going to have a minimum of four-year term, God forbid something acute happen? Sure, I do think that.

after all the Sturm und Drang what do we have, no criminal charges, no nefarious acts, nothing all

that out of the ordinary in D.C. .....

So there it is. After all the Sturm und Drang, no criminal, indictable acts, no nefarious subterfuge, not even anything highly unusual. The GOP's hysterical shouting of Hillary's email 'scandal' amounts to nothing too out of the ordinary in D.C. Yes, she had a private email account which she used for official business. The State Dept's IG, in his recent report, found that use of personal email accounts among high level execs for official business is common. Which means there was no clear cut policy re such practice. It's known the Government computer systems are slow and the practice of going around it, in order to do your job is widely known to be true (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hillar...

In terms of the legalities, Clinton's use of personal server to handle emails is no different than Colin Powell's and Condi Rice's use of personal email accounts with commercial email service providers. There is, however, a way in which Clinton's use of a personal server is very much different than using a personal email account with a commercial email provider. Commercial email providers have large numbers of cyber-security personnel, whose job it is to protect their system from intrusions by hackers and malware. In order to do their job they MUST HAVE THE ABILITY TO EXAMINE ANY AND ALL EMAILS/ATTACHMENTS ON THEIR SERVERS. This means that if any classified data were to be included in any emails through a commercial email service provider, NO ONE CAN GUARANTEE THAT SUCH CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS PROTECTED FROM EXAMINATION BY UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS. NOTE that, these cyber-security personnel, in the employ of private companies DO NOT HAVE GOVERNMENT SECURITY CLEARANCES. Hillary's server however, was on government property, managed by government personnel, protected by Government personnel (Secret Service). Hillary's emails were secure.

Hillary's email system was managed & protected by Government personnel in contrast to emails residing on a commercial email service provider's server. But what about the Government emails system? How does Clinton's email server compare to that?

Well, as Dir Comey had to admit, the FBI found no evidence her server had been hacked. Comey did, offer the conjecture that it's possible a sophisticated bad actor could have hacked into Clinton's server and not left any evidence of having done so. Unfortunately, this hypothesis has certain practical problems. It should be obvious to Mr. Comey that no bad actor who goes to the trouble of getting malware onto someones server is going to have such malware erase itself from said server after a period of time. This just makes no sense. IF someone goes to the trouble to get malware onto a server, they are going to want that malware to remain there updating the bad actor as to what is transpiring on that server (i.e. emails sent & received) for an indeterminate length of time. It is simply not realistic to suppose someone would get malware secreted onto someone's server and to limit it's service by having it erase itself after some passage of time.

Mr. Comey said that the FBI was able to detect malware in some of the emails of some people that Clinton communicated with. Well, this is noteworthy, because if the FBI's malware detecting software could find malware in somebody's emails it sure as hell can detect malware on Hillary's server.

IT should be noted that while Clinton's server showed no signs of being hacked, during Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State a number of Government computer systems, including that of the Department of State ..HAD BEEN HACKED!

There is a reason, Clinton's server was not hacked into, while other Government systems had been.
And it has nothing to do with the caliber of anti-virus software on these respective systems.

The most often used method of hacking into a computer system/server is by sending a phony email, which is made to look like an official, bona-fide email. This increases the likelihood of someone opening such an email. This phony email will have a link in it and present a plausible reason for the victim to click on that link. What you need is for one person - of all the users on that system - to 'buy' the subterfuge and click on that link. When they do, the malware is at that url (internet location) and once the browser on the victims computer goes to that internet location, the malware is downloaded to the client computer. Once on the client computer the malware is able to secrete itself onto the server/servers supporting that system.

Each person on a given computer system is a potential open window for the bad actor to fool to get his malware onto that system. Now Clinton's email was accessed by one person - Hillary Clinton. The State Dept has about 11,000 people on their computer system. That means a bad actor has 11,000 chances to fool someone to get the fake email opened to get his malware on the target computer system (server). So there's the difference: on Clinton's email system the bad actor has one chance to 'beat the system'. On the State Department's system he has 11,000 chances to find one person to fool and get his malware on that system. This is another factor In why Clinton's email server was not hacked and several Government systems were. And this factor itself, may have been the reason Colin Powell advised Hillary Clinton to set up her own email account when she was appointed Secretary of State. She chose to use a government controlled satellite server rather than a commercial email service.

FWIW: posted to Washington Post's PLUM LINE, Open Thread today.(I only mentioned this to encourage others to do the same - Represent Democrats and rational realism on the pages of M$M)

Spare me the phony outrage over Clinton’s ‘basket of deplorables’ remark - Greg Sargent, WaPo

"The American people know what Trump is doing. A recent Quinnipiac poll found that American voters say by 59-36 that 'the way Trump talks appeals to bigotry.' " {that's 62%:38%_B USA}


Let’s stipulate at the outset that this kind of generalization is not defensible. Clinton should not have described “half” of Trump’s supporters this way. People have all kinds of reasons for supporting their candidate — party loyalty; reflexive negative partisanship; genuine distaste with the alternatives; meaningful, legitimate support for certain aspects of the candidate’s agenda, and not others; and so forth.

A Clinton spokesperson qualified these remarks in a series of tweets, pointing out that Clinton was talking about Trump’s rally crowds, and noting that half of them appear to be alt-right types. But even so, Clinton doesn’t know what ultimately is motivating “half” of Trump’s rally attendees, and she should not claim to.

But if there is one group of people who should take their outrage about Clinton’s comments and stuff it in a very dark place, it’s Trump and his paid apologists, who unloaded in a series of tweets this morning. Trump’s campaign even put out a statement claiming that Clinton “revealed her true contempt for everyday Americans.”

Oh, please. Two things can be true at the same time: First, Clinton overgeneralized about what’s in the hearts and minds of Trump supporters. Second, her underlying characterization of the general nature of many of Trump’s campaign appeals — and her related observation that they really are successfully playing on the baser instincts of an untold number of Trump’s supporters — are 100 percent accurate.

I wonder what percentage of Trump's statements in speeches fall into the "the frightening others" or "us versus them" categories? What is that percentage after you take out those statements which are lies about Clinton or Obama.. 90%?

Xenophobia is just about his whole campaign.

he Hillary Clinton email story is out of control - WaPo editorial

JUDGING BY the amount of time NBC’s Matt Lauer spent pressing Hillary Clinton on her emails during Wednesday’s national security presidential forum, one would think that her homebrew server was one of the most important issues facing the country this election. It is not. There are a thousand other substantive issues — from China’s aggressive moves in the South China Sea to National Security Agency intelligence-gathering to military spending — that would have revealed more about what the candidates know and how they would govern. Instead, these did not even get mentioned in the first of 5˝ precious prime-time hours the two candidates will share before Election Day, while emails took up a third of Ms. Clinton’s time.


In fact, Ms. Clinton’s emails have endured much more scrutiny than an ordinary person’s would have, and the criminal case against her was so thin that charging her would have been to treat her very differently. Ironically, even as the email issue consumed so much precious airtime, several pieces of news reported Wednesday should have taken some steam out of the story. First is a memo FBI Director James B. Comey sent to his staff explaining that the decision not to recommend charging Ms. Clinton was “not a cliff-hanger” and that people “chest-beating” and second-guessing the FBI do not know what they are talking about. Anyone who claims that Ms. Clinton should be in prison accuses, without evidence, the FBI of corruption or flagrant incompetence.

Second is the emergence of an email exchange between Ms. Clinton and former secretary of state Colin Powell in which he explained that he used a private computer and bypassed State Department servers while he ran the agency, even when communicating with foreign leaders and top officials. Mr. Powell attempted last month to distance himself from Ms. Clinton’s practices, which is one of the many factors that made the email story look worse. Now, it seems, Mr. Powell engaged in similar behavior.


Imagine how history would judge today’s Americans if, looking back at this election, the record showed that voters empowered a dangerous man because of . . . a minor email scandal. There is no equivalence between Ms. Clinton’s wrongs and Mr. Trump’s manifest unfitness for office.

Here's Why Trump's Florida Attorney General Scandal Is a Really Big Deal


Can State Attorneys General Be Bribed?
Donald Trump has made corruption one of the most important issues of this presidential election. He’s called many of his opponents spineless politicians who will abandon any principle in order to secure enough campaign contributions to get reelected.

Of course, Trump has also bragged that he has long been on the other side of this process. “When I want something I get it,” Trump said at a rally in January.”When I call, they kiss my ass. It’s true.”

But in recent days Donald Trump has had to defend himself against allegations that he has done exactly as he long claimed: Traded campaign contributions for favors from elected officials. A report in the Associated Press describes what allegedly transpired:

Florida’s attorney general personally solicited a political contribution from Donald Trump around the same time her office deliberated joining an investigation of alleged fraud at Trump University and its affiliates . . .
The money came from a Trump family foundation in apparent violation of rules surrounding political activities by charities. A political group backing Bondi’s re-election, called And Justice for All, reported receiving the check Sept. 17, 2013—four days after Bondi’s office publicly announced she was considering joining a New York state probe of Trump University’s activities, according to a 2013 report in the Orlando Sentinel.

A year later, according to the Huffington Post, Trump held a fundraiser for Bondi at his 126-room Palm Beach resort, Mar-a-Lago.

Media disinterested in a real scandal: Trump Foundation payout to Fla AG Bondi - Rieder, USA Today


As you may have noticed, it doesn't take a lot to fire up media attention during the bizarre presidential campaign we are now enduring.


So when it turns out that a candidate's foundation has been fined for a making an illegal contribution, and said contribution had been given to a group supporting an attorney general at the time weighing whether to investigate at the candidate's university, you'd expect full media paroxysm, right?

Particularly after the media had for weeks been focused on the foundation of the candidate's rival, finding no shortage of things that sounded kind of Icky Woods but nothing nearly as definitive as the other candidate's illegal contribution. (Charitable foundations are not permitted to make political donations.)


"The improper donation, a $25,000 gift from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, was made in 2013. At the time, Attorney General Pam Bondi was considering whether to investigate fraud allegations against Trump University. She decided not to pursue the case."

Clinton:"none of the emails sent or received by me had such (i.e. Classified) a header" AT LAST!!

(all emphases my own)

Lauer's second question at NBC's Commander-In-Chief Forum was about the email scandal, and he pressed the Democratic presidential nominee as she tried to explain how she handled classified information.

"The word judgment has been used a lot around you, Secretary Clinton, over the last year and a half, and in particular concerning your use of your personal email and server to communicate while you were secretary of state," Lauer said.

He then asked: "Why wasn't it disqualifying, if you want to be commander in chief?"


"The real question is the handling of classified material, which is I think what the implication of what your question was," Clinton said. "(I) have a lot of experience dealing with classified material. ... Classified material has a header, which has top secret, secret, confidential. Nothing, and I will repeat this and this is verified in the report by the Department of Justice, none of the emails sent or received by me had such a header."

VERY WELL SAID, Secretary Clinton, very well said..

... I'm glad you said that, because THAT IS THE ONLY WAY THAT FACT WILL BE HEARD ON M$M.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 120 Next »