HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » IdaBriggs » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: South East Michigan
Home country: United States
Member since: Tue Jul 27, 2004, 01:19 PM
Number of posts: 10,559

Journal Archives

MSNBC: "Has She Told the Truth? It depends on whom you ask."


Has She Told the Truth?

It depends on whom you ask.

Clinton has repeatedly said that her use of the server was “allowed.” And last year on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” she insisted that she’s been “as transparent as possible.”

But the IG’s report appears to contradict both assertions. In more than one place, it says no the senior State Department official in charge of information security was ever asked to approve the arrangement. Had they been asked, they would have said no, according to the report.

And while Clinton has said she’s been cooperative and transparent, the report discloses that she declined to cooperate with the State Department inquiry — along with at least eight of her top State Department advisers.

from the article: What the State Department email report means for Hillary Clinton, MSNBC, May 25, 2016

Followed from this link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512055771

I think MSNBC just politely called her a liar in print, and provided links. Maybe they don't like being "not credible" for believing her? Stuff is going down....

Guccifer News (Warning: from FOX)

ON EDIT: Yep, she scooped it! http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512057675

I went there so you don't have to - but candidly, this particular reporter has been getting some good scoops a little ahead of the other news outlets. Also, she donated a part of her liver to save her young child and is now an advocate for organ donation, so she has some good karma points. As for her work ethic, she is very cautious about identifying "opinion versus fact" which I like, and she keeps getting her hands on actual documents, including apparently, a copy of the plea agreement. HOWEVER, she is from FOX, so skeptiscm is reasonable. In other words, take the "provable facts" in context, and wait for the rest to play out.


Hacker who claims he breached Clinton server pleads guilty, strikes deal with feds, FOX News, May 25, 2016

The Romanian hacker who claimed he easily breached Hillary Clinton's email server pleaded guilty Wednesday in federal court to two counts of computer hacking charges, as part of a deal with the Justice Department.

In exchange for a reduced sentence, Marcel Lehel Lazar – also known as Guccifer -- has agreed to cooperate with federal authorities in the future.

Lazar pleaded guilty to the unauthorized access of a protected computer and aggravated identity theft, counts tied to his illegal intrusion into systems belonging to former U.S. government officials, including former Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
As outlined in the plea agreement which Fox News has reviewed, Lazar has agreed to extensive cooperation with the U.S. government. According to the court filing, Lazar has agreed to be "reasonably available for debriefing and pre-trial conferences as the U.S. may require."

The document states: “The defendant agrees to testify truthfully and completely at any grand juries, trials or other proceedings.

Additionally, Lazar has agreed to provide all documents, writings, and recordings within his custody to the U.S. government that may be relevant to investigations or inquiries.
(more at link)

Interesting, eh? A hacker who worked alone has agreed to "testify truthfully and completely" about what? And what kind of documents does he have?

WP: "Trump escalates attack on Bill Clinton"


Trump escalates attack on Bill Clinton, Washington Post, May 23, 2016

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is reviving some of the ugliest political chapters of the 1990s with escalating personal attacks on Bill Clinton’s character, part of a concerted effort to smother Hillary Clinton’s campaign message with the weight of decades of controversy.

Trump’s latest shot came Monday when he released an incendiary Instagram video that includes the voices of two women who accused the former president of sexual assault, underscoring the presumptive Republican nominee’s willingness to go far beyond political norms in his critique of his likely Democratic rival.


“They said things about me which were very nasty. And I don’t want to play that game at all. I don’t want to play it — at all. But they said things about me that were very nasty,” Trump told The Washington Post in an interview. “And, you know, as long as they do that, you know, I will play at whatever level I have to play at. I think I’ve proven that.”


“It’s the one thing with her, whether it’s Whitewater or whether it’s Vince or whether it’s Benghazi. It’s always a mess with Hillary,” Trump said in the interview.


The Clintons collectively have dodged many, many, many bullets. So much that was suppressed (by the media) is going to get re-analyzed. So many of the things that they slipped by on will get reexamined,” Trump confidant Roger Stone said Monday. “That’s something they should have counted on before getting into the race.”

(more at link)

I heard about Trump's new attack ad and pulled it up to show my husband this morning. It was as bad as you would expect (and I'm not going to link to it - you can google it yourself). I had to tell my nine-year-old daughter to leave the room while we were watching it; there was some graphic description I'm just not ready to be talking with her about.

Trump is an asshole. He is also extremely good at the media game, which makes sense since he spent over ten years doing "crafting an image" type story telling in "reality television land". For those of you who have saved your sanity by NOT watching any, let me walk you through the basics:

Activities and speeches are selectively edited to craft a narrative -- "this person is mean" or "this person is sweet" or "this person is incompetent". These clips are then played over and over again so that everyone watching understands the archetypes of "hero/villain" and "winner/loser".

Lyndon Johnson used to talk about asking a candidate "are you still beating your wife?" style attacks that have no good answer (yes, you suck because you beat your wife/no, you suck because you are still beating your wife), so what Trump is doing is nothing new. By the time the first three people reply to this post disputing the attacks, the message has already been received and the next clip is being cued up.

This message is simple: Hilary's husband is an accused sexual predator.

Don't bother to deny it - it's the truth. He is ACCUSED and now the narrative is set.

Want to argue whether the accusation is valid? Care to discuss how credible the accusers were? Want to know why, if it was real, there weren't charges filed? Oh, and if it wasn't true, why didn't he sue them for slander? It was probably true -- everyone knows how women who are sexually assaulted usually aren't believed, especially with a powerful man....does America want an ACCUSED sexual predator back in the White House?

Seriously, are you still beating your wife?

(And for the alert happy crowd, I AM NOT AGREEING with this shit -- I am pointing out HOW IT IS BEING DONE and WHY IT WORKS.)

This isn't politics as usual -- this is politics as entertaining blood sport reality television.

"I don't want to play that game at all," Trump said. THAT IS A LIE. Trump has already set the stage for him to be the HERO with his television show carefully editing him to appear competent, decisive and intuitive. He may have made wrong decisions that people disagreed with (which controversy generated buzz for his show), but then he moved on to the next exciting installment, and any wrath about "he fired the wrong person!" was quickly old news. His team also has cultivated positive media relationships in the "entertainment" industry, and let me assure you, more people watch "entertainment shows" than "news shows". Added bonus: the consequences for any bad decisions Trump made didn't involve pictures of dead children.

Picture that one: pictures of dead children in Iraq, their mothers bloody and crying over them, while Hillary's speeches are played over them. "We gave the Iraqi people the gift of freedom." Or the drowned refugee children fleeing Libya, with her smirking about "we came, we saw, he died" following it. The tag lines write themselves...

Bill and Hillary Clinton have never been subject to the type of accountability that comes with somebody with the stature of "legitimate opponent whose remarks must be covered not only for the ratings, but also because responsible journalists cover both sides of an issue." Hillary might want to talk about the issues, but issues aren't as interesting as the stories. Trump doesn't appear to be afraid of having his possible transgressions exposed, but honestly, in a mud slinging festival, both parties get dirty.

Yes, yes, Bernie Sanders is already "crazy Bernie" but Bernie has practiced his own game of "reality television" by serving in the House of Representatives for sixteen years where ripping into each other with pretend courtesy is the favorite past time, and ten years as a Senator where they do it with statesmanlike pretend courtesy, plus his baggage isn't as well established in the public eye. Let me give an example --

Bill with a cigar <-- instant reminder of Bill and Monica in the Oval Office being inappropriate.

Bernie with a cigar <-- who cares?

As First Lady, Hillary had automatic respect and gravitas. She had some EPIC bungles (TravelGate, White Water, Health Care Reform, etc.) but her favorables went UP as "publicly humiliated spouse". As Senator her support for the Iraq War, cluster bombs and flag burning amendment look like she's an idiot who accomplished nothing. Her record as Secretary of State is tainted beyond belief with regime change debacles and an FBI investigation because she couldn't even send emails without creating a scandal. The narrative is not one of "leader" or "fighter" or "winner" because supporting something doesn't mean you actually accomplished anything. And Bernie is going to have the same problems convincing entertainment hungry voters that government work is actually WORK, and that he did anything useful while he spent time vacationing in Congress.

Trump should scare everyone to death because the rules have changed and putting him against Hillary with her ethic challenge issues and Clinton fatigue in general has me convinced "hail Trump" is in our future. Bernie's integrity may save him, but I'm not convinced it's a guarantee. Trump mowed through horrible, but experienced challengers in the Republican race, and several of them were good at playing dirty.

It's going to be the Chinese version of interesting times.

ABC: Clinton Email Probe in Late Stage, FBI May Question Her


Clinton Email Probe in Late Stage, FBI May Question Her, By MICHAEL BIESECKER, ASSOCIATED PRESS, May 24, 2016, 3:19 AM ET

FBI agents probing whether Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server imperiled government secrets appear close to completing their work, a process experts say will probably culminate in a sit-down with the former secretary of state.

The FBI has already spoken with Huma Abedin, a Clinton confidant who was among the Democratic presidential front runner's closest aides at the State Department. Former chief of staff Cheryl D. Mills is also cooperating with the investigation, according to her lawyer.

This signals that agents will probably seek to interview Clinton soon, if they haven't already, former Justice Department officials told The Associated Press. The FBI's standard practice is to save questioning the person at the center of an investigation for last, once it has gathered available facts from others.

"With a person like Secretary Clinton, the FBI probably assumes they are going to get one chance to interview her, not only because she is a prominent person but because she is very busy right now with the presidential campaign," said David Deitch, a former Justice Department prosecutor. "It makes sense they would defer interviewing her until late in their investigation."


Republicans want to keep the issue alive through the November presidential election, alleging that she put national security at risk.

(more at link)

Nothing to see here -- just a standard FBI investigation with Hillary Clinton at the center of it.

I hope they wrap this up this week - I have $5 to DU and a pizza riding on this!


Hillary is smart to avoid debating on FOX (again).

The more she talks, the less people like her. Plus, she's only hoping to be President of the Conservative Democrats, so any efforts to reach a broader audience with a free media event like a televised debate are silly. And she might get caught in more lies if she is asked about any FBI interviews, because a FOX moderator will probably address the fact she is currently being investigated by the FBI, a prime witness has been granted immunity, and a hacker who posted her emails with a guy who had no security clearance all over the Internet just struck a plea deal with DOJ. Oh, and they might ask her about her relationship with Terry McAuliffe and any connection she or the Clinton Foundation have with the FBI corruption investigation currently going on.

I bet she can get a nice interview with "Entertainment Tonight" and talk about her hair or something else safe.

Just because she made an agreement to do something doesn't mean she actually meant it.

There is a lesson there that her supporters should pay attention to, but they will probably miss it. When a person a) avoids tough questions and b) doesn't keep their promises because reasons it isn't circumstances - it's character.

Some people have good character, and some people don't.

Cornell West: Thumbs up or Thumbs down?

I am in discussion about him and am under the impression he is an educated outspoken advocate for the African American community, but have been told that he is offensive to many Democrats. I know his famous book Race Matters was absolutely groundbreaking, but that was twenty years ago.

I am a Bernie supporter, and I am unsure if this is simply standard Bernie/Hillary we-have-to-disagree-because-primary.

Thoughts, please?

Discussion: "Hillary Clinton Email Inquiry Won’t Be Rushed, F.B.I. Chief Says"

Hillary Clinton Email Inquiry Won’t Be Rushed, F.B.I. Chief Says, The New York Times, May 11, 2016

WASHINGTON — The director of the F.B.I. said Wednesday that he would not be rushed into finishing his agency’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails on an election timetable. And he would not say whether the inquiry would be wrapped up by the November presidential election.

“We want to do it well and we want to do it promptly, so I feel pressure to do both of those things,” James Comey, the F.B.I. director, said.

“I don’t tether to any particular external deadline,” he said during a round-table discussion with reporters, “so I do feel the pressure to do it well and promptly, but as between the two, I always choose ‘well.’”

While Mrs. Clinton has characterized the investigation as a “security inquiry,” Mr. Comey said he was “not familiar with the term.”


The F.B.I.’s case began as a security referral from the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies, who were concerned that classified information might have been stored outside a secure government network. But multiple law enforcement officials said the matter quickly became an investigation into whether anyone had committed a crime in handling classified information.

(more at link)

This investigation has gone on for over a year. Barring the unlikely event she is exonerated by the FBI for any wrongdoing, it is my opinion she will be facing at least some criminal charges for what can only be described as egregiously bad judgment up to and including attempting to destroy government records.

From the "Clinton Email Scandal Timeline", we know she was asked politely to return the government records in her basement to the State Department in mid-2014, then formally required to do so on October 28, 2014, but delayed doing so until December 5, 2014 after deleting 31,830 that she said were all personal but weren't. (Link: http://www.thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_-_Short_Version_-_Part_2)

How do I "know" she deleted government records (aka work emails)? Because some of them were turned in by other people!

Clinton confidante Blumenthal testifies before House Benghazi panel, CBS News, June 16, 2015

A long time advisor and confidant to the Clinton family, Sidney Blumenthal, testified in a closed session Tuesday before the House Select Committee on Benghazi after the committee received nearly 120 new pages of emails Blumenthal exchanged with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

"Sidney Blumenthal produced to the Committee nearly 60 new emails regarding Libya and Benghazi," the panel's chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina, said. "I think it's noteworthy that no committee of Congress that has previously looked in to Benghazi or Libya uncovered these memos and I will leave it to you to figure out if whether there was a failure to produce on the former secretary's part of there was a failure to produce on the Department of State's behalf."

(more at link)

So, here is the problem: it looks like she has committed crimes that should result in jail time. I am not voting for a candidate who belongs in jail. The only way to allay this fear is for the FBI to either indict or exonerate her -- and no, the word of a possible criminal claiming innocence, especially one known for her "flexibility" with being truthful, is simply not adequate.

Hillary keeps saying "the FBI has not contacted her" which may just be weasel words for "because they are contacting my lawyer instead", but if she is truly innocent, why doesn't she call THEM?

I am a Bernie supporter. I have MANY policy differences with Hillary Clinton, but this one is big enough for me to actively fight AGAINST HER to the point of switching parties if she makes it to the General, especially because I have also read that some of those "deleted emails" tie in with "pay to play corruption" through the Clinton Foundation. The idea that for the first time in over three decades of voting that I will NOT vote for the Democrat candidate for President is beyond distressing, but I will NOT vote or support someone who may belong in jail.

I live in Michigan, and my vote will count, as well as my willingness to volunteer with GOTV efforts. I am not going to vote for Trump. BUT if Hillary Clinton wants me to hold my nose and support her *if* she makes it to November, this issue needs to be resolved, preferably sooner rather than later. The FBI dragging their feet about it is unacceptable -- but frankly, the fact she is even running while under this type of cloud is absolutely embarrassing. It appears as if Democrats do not take law enforcement investigation efforts by the FBI seriously, which is the very definition of "shameful scandal" to most sensible Americans.

Meanwhile, the Republicans are running a guy who is being sued for "Trump University" which utter humiliation should have them hiding under rocks on Election Day, but our front runner candidate has THIRTY-EIGHT civil lawsuits with her name all over them AND an FBI investigation --


I love President Obama. I am going to miss him.

Gay Marriage Didn't End the World - Next Con: Bathroom Police

If you've been puzzled over the crazy stuff coming out about "scary transgenders who use bathrooms" allow me to explain:

It's a Con Job.

I know, I know - you are ever so shocked. But what do people who rely on FEAR to fund their campaigns and evangelical lifestyles do when their biggest marketing ploy goes down the drain?

You find a new angle.

Yes, gay marriage is now the law of the land, and the avenging heavens did not rain down fire and brimstone in righteous wrath over the abomination of wedding registries. What should people who counted on this do so that their flocks do not flee before being fleeced?

Come up with another Con Job. And this one is ... sad. It is already trickling into Facebook.

Deuteronomy 22:5 "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

There you have it - fashion advice from 7th Century BC! It has everything; women who wear pants can be slut shamed, men who cross dress (a minority) can be vilified, and legislating against these types of "sinners" is awesome for fundraising!

Personally I thought they were going to go after the tattoo people, but apparently too many of their congregations might be alienated with that attack.

Gay marriage didn't cause the world to end, and the liars who preached that it would weren't held publicly accountable for misleading their fleecable flocks. In fact, passionate prayers were held, and the pious now know that the cultural battle they are called to fight is....potty politics.

Don't laugh too much; once this one blows up (and it will), they will need a new target.

When the end of the world is your bread-and-butter, you find a reason to fund it. Heaven forbid you spend your time, energy and money feeding the poor or taking care of the sick or caring for orphans -- those things are boring and don't give the thrill of the bathroom police patrol checking neighboring genitals.

I have no solution other than "point and laugh". It is difficult to argue with those whose financial situation benefits from bad behavior, so until someone figures out how to fix stupid, this might be a new thing for a while.

Sympathy to us all...sigh.

An Obnoxious Poster Analysis (As of 20160517)

Back on April 24, 2016 I posted a thread in GDP entitled "Fun DU Factoids" which the hosts decided to lock under the "no meta" criteria. (No critiscm implied - host duties are tough, especially in GDP and although I thought the topic interesting, I could understand the argument used.) The link is http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511825904 for those interested.

Today I thought I would share some updates on that data, prompted by a casual comment made about "doing a report on who has their yellow transparency page showing".

Whose supporters are really being obnoxious?

Hillary Group:

Blocked - Apr 24: 846; May 17: 781
Trashed - Apr 24: 410; May 17: 437
Number of posts, 30 days: Apr 24: 32,725; May 17: 32,410

As of May 17, 2016 FOUR of the first 50 people on the "Hillary Block List" have their Transparency yellow tab showing. One of these people is currently in a "Flagged For Review" status with 12 hides.

Bernie Group:

Blocked - Apr 24: 349; May 17: 365
Trashed - Apr 24: 177; May 17: 184
Number of posts, 30 days: Apr 24: 27,266; May 17: 20,967

As of May 17, 2016 TWELVE of the first 50 people on the "Bernie Block List" have their Transparency yellow tab showing. Two of these people are currently in a "Flagged For Review" status with 10 and 13 hides respectively.

While it is tempting to just go with the obvious easy analysis of "there are three times as many Hillary supporters being obnoxious versus Bernie supporters" I must point out that right now there are significantly MORE Bernie people on this board at the moment, so this might be causing some unfair jury hides. (I didn't evaluate the hides - just did a quick look.) It also appears that anyone with double digit hides on either side is taking an admin enforced break. And these numbers are only on the first 50 blocked - since there are close to 1,200 "blocked folk" and this was just a fun thing, the first 50 seemed a reasonable quick check.

Make of the data what you will - it's a trivia thing.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »