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

Bill USA

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PM
Number of posts: 6,436

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

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 [Donald] 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.

[hr style="background:000066;"][hr style="background:000066;"]

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

[font size="3"]
"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 5½ 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 [font size="+1"]he used a private computer and bypassed State Department servers[/font] 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 [from politicians] 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. ... [font size="+1"]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."[/font]

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.

Top Intel Official Says US Should 'Not Bother' Labeling Some Info Classified


If the nation's top intelligence official had his way, some of the classified information found on Hillary Clinton's private email server wouldn't have been deemed sensitive enough to be classified in the first place.

Speaking today at an intelligence-related summit in Washington, D.C., Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said U.S. agencies are “guilty” of labeling too much information as classified, and he said agencies could “somewhat simplify our system” if they would “just not bother” restricting information that's currently classified as “confidential,” the lowest level of classification.

Clapper was not speaking about Clinton’s case, instead referring to a broader effort to overhaul the classification system used across the U.S. government. But his comments come amid an increasing debate over the classified information found on the private server that the Democratic presidential nominee used when she was secretary of state.

LOL! In this article only seen on the web, ABC let's out what they DARE NOT say on the air....

But the emails were not properly marked, lacking a header or footer to signal they contained classified information, according to the FBI report.

Probably only few percent of the population know this because it completely negates the narrative M$M must continue to promote - that Hillary lied about not sending or receiving anything marked classified.

Clinton campaign calls Trump a schoolyard bully- DON'T DO THAT! TRUMP & SUPPORTERS LIKE THAT!

.... Being sophisticated and adult, Clinton campaigners don't realize to a little chicken-shit like Trump - he doesn't MIND being called a bully... that makes him feel good. IT says his 'playing the roll' as he, a scared little eight or nine year old child, sees it of a 'big and confident' man, is working. He is acting the way his childish mind thinks a confident man is supposed to act. Calling him a bully just makes him smirk to himself and think: "Hey, it's working."

It's all part of Punk Talk.

Better to say, with a laugh: "Mr. Trump, obviously needs frequent confidence boosts by using childish taunts and attempted insults. He's a little old to be talking like a kid on the playground. That's not how an adult man talks."


Hillary Clinton’s campaign on Wednesday blasted Donald Trump for his attacks on the former secretary of State, saying they have “no basis in reality.”

In an earlier speech in Philadelphia on Wednesday, Trump had called Clinton “unstable and trigger-happy” while critiquing her foreign policy. A Clinton spokeswoman accused Trump of projecting his own “vulnerabilities” onto his Democratic opponent.

“Like a schoolyard bully who can’t rely on facts or issues, Trump has only one way of responding to legitimate criticism of his own vulnerabilities: ‘I know you are, but what am I?’ ” Jennifer Palmieri said in a statement.

She added that when Clinton has given detailed, evidence-based criticisms of Trump, he has responded by resorting to false “taunts and insults.”
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »