HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Bill USA » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 115 Next »

Bill USA

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PM
Number of posts: 5,560

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

Politifact completely duped by Comey, thinks Clinton received/sent classified information in emails

Politifact 'went to print' with their 'finding' based on Comey's statement, July 5, that seemed to definitely indicate that the FBI found emails with classified information in them. In a rush to get something on the internet, they didn't wait to hear Comey's answers to questions from House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7. To be more precise, they didn't hear Comey's answers to the questions from Democratic members of the committee in which Comey admitted that NOT ONE email Clinton received or sent was MARKED CLASSIFIED.- as is required by the Government when communicating actual classified information. And if the header - indicating Classified information is in the email - is NOT there - then you know there is no classified information in the email or attachment. Thus, Clinton's statement about not receiving or sending emails marked classified was accurate and completely truthful.

The GOP toadies at Politifact swallowed the tricky language of Comey's statement. The statement was a master class in disinformation and obfuscation. But people who claim to be able to ferret out the truth should have been able to smell something fishy in Comey's statement and waited until Comey appeared before the Committee to give more detailed testimony before announcing any findings. But that of course presupposes they are interested in the truth re Hillary Clinton, the bain of the Repugnant Party, over at Politifact.

FBI findings tear holes in Hillary Clinton's email defense

Clinton said, "I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified."

Clinton has made this claim over and over again. An independent FBI investigation has found that to be inaccurate.

It’s important to remember that only "a very small number" of her emails, two, were marked classified when they were first sent, and just 110 out of the 30,000 she turned over were classified but unmarked. Evidence seems to indicate that Clinton generally dealt with classified information in an appropriate manner.

But over the course of a year, Clinton and her staff have painted a picture of an email setup where absolutely zero classified information slipped through the cracks, case closed.

We rate this statement False.

I rate Politifact's finding as Consummately Fatuous but, no doubt, approved by the GOP.

IF you're interested in a more detailed examination of Comey's verbal tricks and obfuscations (a diplomatic word for lies) see:

A Conservative's Courage: Punk Talk - it applies perfectly to Trump


Punk Talk is a method of compensating for a lack of confidence and low self esteem. It is commonly identified with adolescence, a period during which young people are seeking group acceptance and dealing with issues of self-esteem. Punk Talk is intended to convince others (as well as the speaker) that the speaker is NOT A BIT fearful and NOT A BIT intimidated by anyone - or anything. Punk Talk is the affectation of real self confidence and meant to convince others the speaker is possessed of actual healthy self esteem. The good news for teens is most grow up and grow out of it. They will mature, become adults and develop a healthy self esteem and not need Punk Talk anymore. But not all teens do. Which brings me to the purpose of this post.

Now, let's be clear about this. All of us, at one time or another, can get angry and 'lash out' at someone. But Conservatives it seems, almost can't along without the aid of Punk Talk. That Punk Talk is an outgrowth of self esteem issues is apparent in that it nearly always involves speaking derisively of the other person ... rather than of what the other person is saying. The derisive speech is intended to send the message to the listener: "Ha! I look down on you!" This kind of talk is only necessary when the speaker actually is lacking in confidence and needs a confidence 'boost'. Even a short time on this site reveals the importance of Punk Talk to Conservatives - based upon how much they use it. Many Conservatives posting on this site seem to think Punk Talk takes the place of a valid argument(!?).

my take on Comey's different numbers of emails - supposedly - containing classified data

.. those who have been trying to follow/figure-out what in the end did Dir. Comey actually say about Clinton's handling of emails while Sec of State: here is my take on Comey's statements:

In Comey's original statement, while he said the FBI recommended to not indict HRC re handling of emails and personal server.. Dir Comey went on to say that Hillary Clinton had 110 emails which had classified data in them - at the time they were sent. He also said there were three emails that "bore markings indicating the presence of classified information"

There were two groups of emails of interest:

1) A group of 30,000 emails which Sec Clinton submitted to the State Department:

"FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014."

___ it is from this group that Comey refers to 110 emails:

"110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received."

and 2) A group, from which the specifically mentioned group of 3 emails came:

"With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level."


Now, regarding the group of three - we now know, thanks to Rep. Matt Cartwright's questioning of Comey - that they actually were NOT marked Classified - per the Govt manual on handling Classified information. - DESPITE THE FACT THEY WERE NOT MARKED WITH A HEADER INDICATING THEY CONTAINED CLASSIFIED info - as is REQUIRED BY THE RELEVANT REG/MANUAL, Comey apparently thought the letter "c" appearing in the text of an email was sufficient to declare the email contained classified info - despite the lack of a Classfied Header.

Note: Subsequent to Comey saying he considered these emails classfied, the State Dept issued a statement that the "c"s in those emails were there due to human error. So on any basis these emails did not contain classified information.

Now, let's go back to the 110 emails. Apparently, it was NOT 110 separate emails that contained separate items of classified information. Apparently, it was actually 52 email CHAINS which contained classified info (which info was apparently repeated to add up to 110 instances - but not 110 separate items of classified info).

(see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/07/05/six-things-we-learned-from-the-fbi-investigation-into-hillary-clintons-email/?utm_term=.170cbb2e47fb )

.. So it's not 110 but 52 instances of Classified info being received/sent by Sec Clinton, right?? Wellllll, hold on a minute..


"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received."

I'm not aware of anybody asking Comey about this statement - BUT - if Comey had the "owning agency" "determine" whether the emails contained classified information --- Does that mean - Comey HAD to go the the owning agencies BECAUSE THE REQUIRED HEADER INDICATING THE PRESENCE OF CLASSIFIED INFO - WAS NOT PART OF THE EMAILS? ... AS REQUIRED BY GOVT REG/MANUAL???

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say, if the FBI had to ask the owning agencies to determine if the emails contained Classified Info - then the Header which is required by the Government - WAS NOT THERE.

Which means when Hillary said she did not receive or send anything marked classified she was speaking truthfully.

... as for Dir Comey, far be it from me to declare him an untrustworthy LIAR... but how about an duplicitous OBFUSCATOR?

Key House Republican Admits: GOP Attacks on Women’s Health R Holding Up Zika Funding


The threat of the Zika public health crisis is increasing as summer continues. While Democrats have spent months trying to get our Republican colleagues to take the Zika virus seriously, Republicans have engaged in yet another cynical crusade against women's health. Now, even a key Republican appropriator admits that Republicans are refusing to fund our response to the Zika virus unless the bill attacks Planned Parenthood. There is no reason for this bill to be bogged down by another Republican attack on women's health.


Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK): Republican Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, a senior appropriator, said Republicans are willing to negotiate further on Zika, but said they still want to avoid adding to the deficit or funding Planned Parenthood. Cole called the latter a "red line" for the Republican conference. (Bloomberg, 7/11/16)

The Washington Post Editorial Board described the Republican Zika Conference report as "saddled with unnecessary partisan baubles"

Washington Post Editorial: It's Us Against Zika - Whose Side Is Congress On? "In the very early morning hours Thursday, Republicans who control the House pushed through a bill to combat the Zika virus that is a totem to their favored causes and a poke in the eye of Democrats. More than four months after President Obama requested nearly $1.9 billion in emergency funding to deal with a public-health emergency, the House voted for $1.1 billion but saddled it with unnecessary partisan baubles. This may further delay action against the mosquito-borne virus that can cause severe fetal birth defects." (Washington Post, 6/23/16)

Clinton will push constitutional amendment to ‘overturn Citizens United’

Clinton will push constitutional amendment to ‘overturn Citizens United’

ST. LOUIS — Hillary Clinton will call for a constitutional amendment to "overturn Citizens United" in her first 30 days as president and plans to make that announcement today to progressive activists at the annual Netroots Nation conference.

"I will also appoint Supreme Court justices who understand that this decision was a disaster for our democracy," Clinton will say in a video message, scheduled to run near the end of today's final keynote session. "I will fight for other progressive reforms, including small-dollar matching and disclosure requirements. I hope some of the brilliant minds in this room will seek out cases to challenge Citizens United in the courts."

In a statement accompanying the announcement, Clinton pledges to promote Securities and Exchange Commission "rulemaking requiring publicly traded companies to disclose all political spending to their shareholders" and to sign an "executive order requiring federal government contractors to fully disclose all political spending." She has discussed versions of those ideas on the campaign trail, but the forum of Netroots Nation — a conference in its 11th year that she visited in person only once — was a striking place to make the statement.

Clinton's campaign previewed the announcement for some progressive groups, which gave it their seal of approval. "Hillary Clinton's commitment to overturning Citizens United, and her other systemic proposals like public financing of congressional elections, are key to improving our chances of victory on every other issue," said Marissa Barrow, a spokeswoman for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

Thanks to Comey, most think HRC lied about not sending classfied data - what to do about that?


Is anybody williing to fight disinformation and Big Lies so cheerfully abetted by the Corporate media sycophants of the GOP?

Thanks to Comey, most think HRC lied about not sending classfied data - what to do about that?

DUers have seen articles analyzing Comey cleverly worded statement on Hillary's email practices. Even though the FBI correctly concluded there was no evidence of any intent to transmit classified data and additionally,

... the evidence actually shows even though Comey said she sent something like over a hundred classified emails

"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time"

- the actual number was 3. But even these three emails Comey referred to "bore markings indicating the presence of classified information".

Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

____ But as we learned in the Investigation of the Investigation, these "markings" Comey was referring to were additions of the letter "c" (next to items somebody thought was classified info) in the body of the email. NOTE these emails DID NOT have the required Header/Subject line showing that classified information was included in the document. Thus, by Government reg - they WERE NOT classified. THis is why Comey had to add:

"But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

Further it should be noted that 2 of these emails the Dept of State said were classified (i.e. bore those "markings (in the body of the email) indicating classified info") IN ERROR.


But thanks to Comey's repetition of the lie that she sent/received classified emails most people now think that she lied when she said she did NOT send/receive classified emails.

My question is: "What do you think should be done about this?"
You realize NONE of the Corporate Media outlets will clarify these facts for people.

___ Should Hillary's campaign put an ad out there making it completely clear there were no 100+ Classified emails. And that the "very few" Comey emails said "bore markings indicating the presence of classified information" - none of these three emails were marked Classified in their header/subject line.

___ Should DUers post in discussion forums all over the internet - to make people aware that Hillary did not in fact send any emails designated Classified?

____ Should a PAC put out an ad pointing these facts out and also challenging corporate media to actually tell people the truth?

What do you think should be done?

Quinnipiac University has developed a reputation for outlier polls & the Corp media lap it up

Quinnipiac’s Latino Problem: Shoddy Q Poll Strikes Again and Media Lap it Up

Quinnipiac University has developed a reputation for outlier polls that consistently deliver bad news for Hillary Clinton and good news for Donald Trump. When we deconstruct their polls, Quinnipiac’s errors are glaringly obvious.

On June 29, we took apart a Q poll that showed Donald ahead of Hillary nationally by two points.

My colleagues Anthony Reed (predictive modeling expert and founder of the highly respected Benchmark Politics) and Eric Kleefeld pointed out that Quinnipiac was alone in its depiction of the race as particularly close. Most other polls at the time indicated a Hillary lead of between 4 and 6 points, and some polls placed her advantage at 8 points or above. Unsurprisingly, the Q poll got a wave of breathless media coverage. But a “unique poll result” is typically an indication of a bad poll result.

Here’s Quinnipiac’s fundamental problem: They tend to under-represent minorities. In their June 29 analysis, Reed and Kleefeld argued that polls like PPP, IBD/TIPP predict white turnout will be around 70 percent in 2016, down from 72 percent in the 2012 exit poll. Quinnipiac, on the other hand, has white turnout pegged at 73%. Another dubious finding in the June 29 Q poll is Latino support for Donald at 33% when most polls place it around 20%.

Nine Times Reporters Botched The Facts On Hillary Clinton's Emails - Media Matters

.. I could only excerpt part of one example.


Politico Reported Clinton Violated 2005 Rule Against Personal Email Accounts

Politico: “Clinton Private Email Violated 'Clear-Cut' State Dept. Rules.” In an article headlined “Clinton private email violated 'clear-cut' State Dept. rules,” Politico reported, “The State Department has had a policy in place since 2005 to warn officials against routine use of personal email accounts for government work.” The article went on say the regulation was “in force during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state” and “appears to be at odds with her reliance on a private email for agency business.” From the March 5, 2015, piece:

The State Department has had a policy in place since 2005 to warn officials against routine use of personal email accounts for government work, a regulation in force during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state that appears to be at odds with her reliance on a private email for agency business, POLITICO has learned.

The policy, detailed in a manual for agency employees, adds clarity to an issue at the center of a growing controversy over Clinton’s reliance on a private email account. Aides to Clinton, as well as State Department officials, have suggested that she did nothing inappropriate because of fuzzy guidelines and lack of specific rules on when and how official documents had to be preserved during her years as secretary. (Politico, 3/5/15)

But Exemptions In 2005 Rule Could Allow Private Email Account

CNN: 2005 Rule “Filled With Exemptions That Could Allow Clinton To Use A Private Account.” A CNN report noted that the 2005 guidelines “were filled with exemptions that could allow Clinton to use a private account.” The article also noted that Clinton “was not automatically in violation of State Department policy when she exclusively used a private email during her four years as America's top diplomat.” From the March 6, 2015, article:

PredictIt has Clinton at .68, Trump: .33 ... betting sites are better predictors than polls

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 115 Next »