HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Bill USA » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ... 153 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

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.”

A national-security expert went on a Twitter rant against Trump's nuclear weapons position


John Noonan, a national-security expert who advised Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, went off on Twitter on Wednesday, arguing that Trump's position on nuclear weapons makes him unfit for the presidency.

A foreign-policy expert heard Trump question the US's long-standing policy to avoid using nuclear weapons, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough reported on Wednesday.

Trump reportedly asked about nuclear weapons three times, saying at one point, "If we have them, why can't we use them?"

Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort, later declared that Scarborough's story was "absolutely not true."

Clinton Surges Past 270 Electoral Votes in NBC News Battleground Map


NBC Battleground Map: Clinton Surges Past 270 Electoral Votes

After releasing our seven battleground-state polls last week -- and seeing several other state surveys -- we've updated our NBC battleground map. The states in Hillary Clinton's column now add up to 288 electoral votes, which exceeds the 270 needed to win the presidency. Donald Trump, meanwhile, is at 174 electoral votes, and an additional 76 are in the Tossup category. Our last map, back in July, showed Clinton with a 255-190 advantage — so Clinton's tally has gone up since the conventions, while Trump's has declined.

•Likely Dem: CA, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, ME (3 EVs) MD, MA, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA (200 electoral votes)
•Lean Dem: CO, MI, NE (1 EV), NH, NC, PA, VA, WI (88),
•Tossup: FL, GA, IA, ME (1EV), NV, OH (76)
•Lean GOP: AZ, KS, MO, SC, UT (41)
•Likely GOP: AL, AK, AR, ID, IN, KY, LA, MS, MT, NE (4 EVs), ND, OK, SD, TN, TX, WV, WY (133)

Hillary Clinton Defends Not Knowing State Department Classification Markings - ABC News

Hillary finally said it!!!!!! "There were no headers on the thousands of emails that I sent or received."

        following with: "and the FBI has not in any way contradicted that." ....(could have had "classified" in there before "headers"

Okay, you said it Hillary.. but in a rather circumlocuted way. Your advisors are screwing up. Telling you to be so wimpy about pointing out that Comey confirmed what you said about not sending or receiving anything marked classified.

IMO it would still have been better if your statement was simpler and more direct. Something like:.....

[blockquote style="background: #ddeeff;"] "As I said before: None of the emails I sent or received were marked classified. That is, none had classified headers on them. And Director Comey when questioned by Rep. Cartwright confirmed that."

(hell, if it was up to me I'd have you walk into your interview with a tablet Computer under your arm. THen when you made the statement above you could say; "here's the tape of Cartwright's question and Director Comey's answer, Just so there's no misunderstanding."___ this is the only way this would be seen on M$M tv!

Now, you can say this in a no-drama, low key way (so your advisors don't get upset). There is nothing WRONG with you stating facts which confirm what you said. You don't have to be a wimp to be liked. (that's for your advisors to read). When you say things in a roundabout way many voters won't even 'catch' what you said and Conservatives and their sheep will characterize your statement as dissimulating and sneaky. For a lot of voters it's better to keep it simple and straight-forward.

Here's the ABC News article. BTW, there is pretty hot commenting to this article going on - for those who might be motivated to fight Big Lies. (It just might indicate to ABC news that Democratic viewers care about what is printed or said on the news. - NOT just the campaign staff!)


After the FBI's release of government documents last week that were part of the Hillary Clinton email probe, she told ABC's David Muir Monday that she takes "classification very seriously" and sees the release of those documents as the end of "a very difficult period."

"I have learned that trying to explain what happened made it sound to some people like I was trying to excuse it. There are no excuses," she told Muir in Cleveland.

She added, "I take responsibility. I made a mistake. I've apologized, and obviously I wish I could do differently what happened. I certainly would never do that again."


"There were no headers on the thousands of emails that I sent or received. There just weren't, and the FBI has not in any way contradicted that. There were a couple of emails with a tiny 'C' in a parenthesis, which did not have a header saying that means 'confidential' in this circumstance and which the director of the FBI has said and the State Department has said those couple of emails were improperly marked, even with that. So, yes, I take classification seriously, and I think the record shows that I have," she said.

BREAKING: Four Star Army Generals DEFIANTLY Make First Presidential Endorsement Of Their Careers


Two retired four-star U.S. Army generals stepped up on Thursday morning and endorsed the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton. Although both Gens. David Maddox and Bob Sennewald say they have never endorsed a political candidate before, they both felt compelled to speak out this election cycle.

The two issued a joint statement to the press, saying:

‘Having each served over 34 years and retired as an Army four-star general, we each have worked closely with America’s strongest allies, both in NATO and throughout Asia.

‘Our votes have always been private, and neither of us has ever previously lent his name or voice to a presidential candidate. Having studied what is at stake for this country and the alternatives we have now, we see only one viable leader, and will be voting this November for Secretary Hillary Clinton.’


here's a voluminous debunking of the groundless insinuations that Clinton has let donations to the Clinton Foundation affect her decisions and positions while in serving in the Government either as Senator or Secretary of State.

Good reference material for shooting down RW hysterical charges of curruption made against Clinton...


Clinton campaign spokesman: Nobody “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.”] [NYT, 4/23/15]


•“Clinton Cash” is a political hatchet job masquerading as a book. It was written by Peter Schweizer, a Republican consultant and activist, whose inaccurate reporting and deep conservative ties have given him a major credibility problem..

•The sale of a uranium company to Russia required at least nine federal officials and agencies. Secretary Clinton was not personally involved.

•There is no evidence that Secretary Clinton’s support of the trade deal was in any way linked to Frank Giustra’s contributions to the Clinton Foundation. In the words of former administration adviser David Axelrod, “that’s nuts!”

•The Clinton Foundation – a charity that has improved the lives of people around the world – is ranked as one of the most transparent charities in the world, yet they are attacked due to it. President Clinton’s speaking proceeds are public and old news.

•The Clinton Foundation is a global philanthropy. As with other charities, it receives donations from around the world because it is working to improve the lives of millions.

Eastern US could get a third of its power from renewables within 10 years. Theoretically.


The power grid in the Eastern US, known as the "Eastern Interconnection" (EI), is a technological marvel: an impossibly large, sprawling, and complex machine that’s been operating continuously for over a hundred years, now serving around 240 million people. When considered together with the Canadian EI, it forms what the National Renewable Energy Laboratory calls "the largest coordinated power system in the world."


The EI was built around coal, nuclear, natural gas, and hydro power, which can be deployed whenever grid operators need them. (They are "dispatchable." The pressing question facing today’s policymakers is whether the EI can, relatively quickly, accommodate much more renewable energy, which is variable, i.e., only available when the wind blows or the sun shines.

Prior to the question of how that might be accomplished socially or politically is the simple question of whether it’s technically possible.

That is the question examined by NREL in its newly released Eastern Renewable Generation Integration Study (ERGIS, if you’re nasty).

TV News Widely Covers Anth Weiner Story, Ignores Abuse Accusations Against Trump Campaign CEO

Broadcast network news programs devoted significantly more time to lewd behavior from Anthony Weiner, the husband of an aide to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, than to allegations that Donald Trump's campaign CEO engaged in domestic violence and workplace sexual harassment. The outlets treated the Weiner story as a major campaign issue even though Weiner is playing no direct role in the Clinton campaign.

Politico reported on August 25 that Trump’s campaign CEO, Stephen Bannon, “was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence, battery and dissuading a witness following an incident with his then-wife in 1996.” The charges were later dropped, but the police report says that Bannon’s wife claimed that he “pulled at her neck and wrist during an altercation over their finances, and an officer reported witnessing red marks on her neck and wrist to bolster her account.” BuzzFeed on August 29 reported that Bannon had also been accused of sexual harassment by a co-worker while working as an investment banker in the 1990s.

On August 29, a top aide to Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, announced that she was separating from Weiner following reports that he had sent lewd photos of himself to another woman.

One might think media would focus more on the Bannon story, which involves allegations of criminality against the CEO of a presidential campaign, than on the dissolution of the marriage of a candidate's aide. That was not the case.

A record number of Americans now dislike Hillary Clinton - WaPo

... here's the Washington Post making it's weekly post on Hillary's favorability ratings.

I commented on this article and encourage anybody who feels 'up-to' it to do the same. In my comment, in addition to mentioning the eight Benghazi Show Trials (Kevin McCarthy said the purpose of which was to drive down Clinton's poll numbers), I took the opportunity to criticize WaPo and the rest to M$M for not reporting on the fact that Comey had to admit, when questioned by Rep. Cartwright, that NONE of Clinton's emails puported to have Classified Info in them, - NOT ONE had a Classified Header on it. And he also had to admit it was a reasonable inference for Sec Clinton that these emails were not classified.


Hillary Clinton hit her stride after the Democratic National Convention, riding to a double-digit lead over Donald Trump in some national and swing-state polls — her highest of the year.

As of today, though, Americans' views of her just hit a record low.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows 41 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of Clinton, while 56 percent have an unfavorable one.

That's the worst image Clinton has had in her quarter-century in national public life. Her previous low favorable rating this year was in July, when it was 42 percent, lower than any mark in historical Post-ABC polls except a few points in the 1990s when a large share of the public had no opinion of her. Her previous high for unfavorable views was in June, when 55 percent disliked Clinton.

Comey tanks key GOP talking point, admits classified materials were not 'properly marked'

MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I have the manual here, marking national classified security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little c's on them. Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?

JAMES COMEY: No. [...]

MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document? Right?


MATT CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?

JAMES COMEY: No. There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.

... MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about what's classified and what's not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

video of Cartwright questioning Comey on lack of Classified Headers

Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ... 153 Next »