HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Jarqui » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 75 Next »

Jarqui

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Aug 23, 2015, 02:58 PM
Number of posts: 7,674

Journal Archives

Interesting read, good effort

I do not agree with all of it. But I do agree Clinton is in more serious trouble than is being widely acknowledged.

As to why the FBI is taking so long? I have a different theory. First of all, we haven't heard from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community who was also doing an investigation. Some of his results would be classified but I think the State Department indicated that we would be hearing from them sooner than later. I think his report will be more damning and help set the table for the FBI results. But the big thing that taking time is : the Clinton Foundation. It takes time to "follow the money" And there is lot of money ~ $4 billion and a bunch of stuff that appears to be quid pro quo for weapons and visas, etc. It's hard to believe people gave Bill & Hillary four billion dollars for nothing. I think that's what they're taking a good long hard look at and why it's taking time.

In the wake of subpoenas of the Clinton Foundation last fall, the recent report that the FBI is now investigating long time Clinton money bag man and Clinton Foundation Director Terry McAuliffe for activities prior to him becoming Virginia Governor (he resigned from the Clinton Foundation after he was elected) gives the impression that the FBI may be circling the Clinton Foundation wagons. That adds some substance to the Clinton Cash and other media allegations of last year and is a timely result of the subpoenas and investigations.

Now, if the Dems feel that Clinton is going to get gobbled up by this, as I think she is even if she's innocent, the Dems are the ones who should pull the trigger. If they wait to let the GOP and Trump do it, it's too late and their replacement candidate will suffer credibility problems being brought in that way compared with if the Dems take out their own garbage.

For those who claim I'm just a Bernie supporter trying to get him the nomination, well I do not think Bernie will be handed the nomination. I think the Dems will parachute in Biden or someone like that. I doubt it will work out for Bernie unless he's taken as a VP.

I also think Hillary is in a lot more trouble that people realize or accept. The sooner Democrats realize that, the better the chances will be that Trump doesn't get the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I think this story has some legs and some concern for the Clintons

Sorry for the delay but I took the time to look it over

Here's some of the media coverage (can't shoot the messenger on all of it):

CNN: Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe under federal investigation for campaign contributions

Gov. Terry McAuliffe under federal investigation for campaign contributions

Washington Post: Clinton Foundation donors gave $13 million to Terry McAuliffe

120 Clinton Foundation Donors Gave $13.4 Million To Terry McAuliffe’s Campaigns

Prosecutions rare under law cited in McAuliffe probe

McAuliffe heads off probe that could hurt Clinton

Authorities investigate whether Terry McAuliffe violated lobbying restrictions

Terry McAuliffe’s failing memory

McAuliffe:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_McAuliffe#Fundraising_career_and_relationship_with_the_Clintons
- Clinton friend for 30+ years
- McAuliffe and his staff raised $275 million, then an unprecedented sum, for Clinton's causes while president.
- co-chairman of President Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign
- McAuliffe guaranteed the Clintons' $1.35 million mortgage for their home in Chappaqua, New York. The deal raised ethical questions
- In 2000, McAuliffe chaired a fundraiser with the Clintons; setting a fundraising record of $26.3 million.
- named by Bill Clinton as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, from 2001 to 2005, - chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.
- was a director of the Clinton Foundation during his time as Chairman of the DNC, from early 2000s until Nov 2013. (fyi Cheryl Mills was also a director during that period and continues as of 2014)

Then there's this site (shoot the messenger warning - video by Citizen's United):
http://fastterry.com/



There's this recent story from a Virginia paper to back up the video
Founded by McAuliffe and funded by foreign investors, GreenTech misses targets, damages credibility, feds say

Washington Post: Report: Va. governor received special treatment from Homeland Security
McAuliffe was among several politically powerful individuals from both parties, including Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), seeking special visas for foreign investors through a program administered by the department. But intervention on behalf of McAuliffe’s GreenTech Automotive company by Alejandro Mayorkas, now the department’s No. 2 official, “was unprecedented,” according to the report.

The long-anticipated report found no evidence of law-breaking. But members of the department’s staff perceived Mayorkas’s actions as “politically motivated,” and the report concluded that he had “created an appearance of favoritism and special access.”

The report is likely to stir up renewed scrutiny of the department’s management of the EB-5 visa program, which allows foreign nationals who create jobs in the United States to obtain green cards. And it is likely to rekindle examination of McAuliffe and GreenTech, which at the time of Mayorkas’s actions was under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission over its conduct in soliciting foreign investors.

Initially popular with lawmakers from both parties, the visa program has prompted accusations from detractors that it puts visas up for sale — and doesn’t provide sufficient oversight to ensure that the promised jobs materialize.


The troubling thing with the EB-5 visas is that this isn't the only time it's come up with the Clinton Foundation.

Fortune: The dark, disturbing world of the visa-for-sale program

Hillary’s Brother Saw The Clintons As His Road To Riches
His company was sister company to McAuliffe's car company locaed right beside each other.

I read about visas and the Clinton Foundation last year - a suggestion that they were doing people favors in return for contributions to the Foundation- I'm trying rattle my brain to dig that up - had something to do with South America and other visas I think. That was the thing that triggered me to look at McAuliffe more closely. So this isn't the first time visas and the Clinton Foundation has been kicked around. McAuliffe as a long time director of the Clinton Foundation - until he became governor - is being investigated for what he did before he became governor - while a director of the Clinton Foundation. So this touches pretty close to home to the Clintons in several ways.

This is worth keeping our eyes on because there is a lot of smoke around it that isn't all right wing media/GOP driven.

Some of this stuff reminds me a bit of the Watergate break-in

because it wasn't necessary either. Nixon was already headed to a landslide victory.

I'm not saying Hillary is as bad as Nixon but they do have a lot in common.

The term flip-flop was first used in Nixon's era for his flip-flop on wage and price controls (and on the Vietnam war, etc). I can't think of any politician who has done it as brazenly and as frequently as Hillary.

Both are well known for lying (Hillary's untrustworthy polls).

Nixon, it has been alleged with some evidence, undermined the Vietnam peace talks and kept the war going for several more years. Hillary voted for the Iraq war. It could be argued both supported war for their own personal political gain or reasons - until Hillary flip-flopped to be against the war for her own personal political gain or reasons.

Both were known for alleged dirty tricks in campaigns. "Tricky Dick" Nixon's dirty tricks ultimately cost him the presidency when he didn't need to do them. Nevada is at the end of a fairly long list of allegations of dirty tricks done by Hillary's campaign that started against Obama in 2008. And at this juncture, they're unnecessary if we're to believe her campaign's math argument (which is difficult to refute).

Does that mean I'm lobbying for Trump? No chance. Can't stand that racist meathead.

I protested Nixon and his flip-flop support for the Vietnam war. I couldn't stand his dishonesty, his flip-flopping, his dirty tricks or his war mongering. He was the first president I really disliked. Now, I'm being asked to hold my nose and support a liar, flip-flopper, and war supporter who reminds us of all that when her campaign pulls dirty tricks like this Nevada convention delegate sleaze - because she's a "democrat" (that I see as Republican lite).

And when I question this hypocrisy I'm being asked to commit or lay it bare to talk about, I'm in danger of being banned or getting my post hidden because I exercised first amendment rights on a democratic forum.

Cut some of us a little slack. From where I sit, things look pretty f**ked up and I'm having a struggle with it.

Something maybe not that important that bugged me ..


I was looking into the Panama thing in Hillary's emails and came across this:

http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs/C05774372.pdf

Philippe Reines says

"With 7ish months left, plenty of time to run up the score on total countries. 110 is a reasonable goal. Here are the 94 countries left to choose from (asterisks appear next to countries you visited prior to becoming SecState, but not since - so they would count): "


So I read that and said to myself "Man, what a dick. Sending childish crap like a country count to a Secretary of State of the United States. Like she doesn't have more important things to do or think about in her busy schedule, etc instead of fussing around with a silly country visited count and running up the score - as if that seriously matters compared to her serious duties."

Next email I see is a reply from Hillary:
http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs/C05794958.pdf

"Fw: 22 Additional Countries ... Pis print."


My reaction: omfg

If you're interested in Hillary's emails, interesting article, if not, skip this thread

I do not mean that to be rude. I understand that a lot of folks have probably heard enough on this.

I've too have read a fair amount on this. I like a little legal stuff now and then. This case has had some interesting issues if you like that sort of thing.

This article is written by someone claiming to be a Clinton supporter.

It is one of the longest articles I've ever read. 20 pages?. But I think it's quite good.

The person writing it is not a lawyer but I didn't mind that - she wrote very well about the arguments and issues.

I'll also tell you right now that it does't end well for Hillary. She thinks she'll be indicted and goes to great legal lengths to say why - while remaining quite objective and balanced - presenting the other side of the issue - each step of the way.

Do I Really Need to Worry About Hillary’s Emails? Yes. She Will Be Indicted

I can't say I agreed with everything said. I'm not positive they are right in their conclusions.

There's probably just a small percentage of people that will make it through the article. You probably have to be really into this story to read it and stay with it and maybe already know it well.

But I thought the effort deserved a link. Whoever wrote this obviously worked very hard on it.

It's really a very insulting premise.

Some people around here sincerely care about others. As I approach retirement age, I kind of feel that I've had my shot and what matters more to me is the kind of place I'm leaving to my kids.

The people dying without healthcare just eats me up - really upsets me. I can't stand it. I'm sick of it. But I know that if the GOP win the White House, it won't get better - it might get worse. And I also know if Hillary wins, there is no single payer in the cards and I feel her chances of universal are slim because she's not popular enough to carry the House and Senate.

I've been protesting wars since Vietnam. I've lost family members to war. Hillary and the GOP present a much greater chance of more war that than Sanders. I get to live in quiet fear of that if Bernie loses.

How many more black people do I have to watch get shot in the back by police? I do not have the words to describe the horror of such scenes of injustice in our society. I do not have faith in Hillary to solve that.

I fought against NAFTA before it had a name. I knew what it was going to do. It devastated the lives of many dear friends. Only one candidate can be relied upon to stop that bleeding.

I could go on and on. Climate change, Citizens United, etc, etc.

Like I said, after fighting for progressive causes since I was a young teenager, the notion of the top post is insulting.

As Hillary Clinton bolstered Boeing, company returned the favor

link to Seattle Times article dated March 21, 2016
So appreciative of her sales efforts, Boeing’s then-president and CEO Jim McNerney once turned to her on stage at a government-business conference and lauded her department for advocating like no other in the past two decades: “It’s like back to the late ’80s and early ’90s all over again.”
....
During the periods when Secretary Clinton was pushing governments to sign deals with Boeing, the aerospace company provided financial support to help her achieve a major foreign-policy goal. Boeing also donated more than $1 million to the Clinton family’s global foundation set up by her husband, former President Clinton, and sponsored speeches that paid him six-figure sums.
...
As Clinton and Boeing were aiding each other’s agendas at the State Department, the company in turn supported the Clintons outside of government.
...
Before his surprise win in Michigan, Sen. Bernie Sanders hammered Clinton in a CNN sponsored debate for her support of free-trade agreements. He then mocked the U.S. Export-Import Bank, a federal agency that provides insurance and financing to aid international transactions, calling it “The Bank of Boeing” and a form of corporate welfare.

Clinton defended the bank, saying it preserved U.S. jobs and helped companies of all sizes.
CNN moderator Anderson Cooper noted that Boeing and other big corporations get most of the Ex-Im support. “Do they really need this money?” he asked her.Clinton said she “investigated” whether Boeing did need the financial support. “I’ll tell you what, Anderson,” Clinton replied. “…I concluded that they did.”



The Seattle Times is one of the few major newspapers not in the 90% of the US media controlled by the big six corporate firms. The Blethen family, who live locally around Seattle, Washington, have privately owned the Seattle Times for about 120 years. Like Bernie, the Seattle Times is not for sale. The Seattle Times editorial board endorsed Bernie Sanders. Boeing has been operating in Washington State for close to one hundred years so the Seattle Times has been covering Boeing for a long time.

This isn't completely news. Others have reported about the Clintons, Boeing, the Clinton Foundation and the State Department and it was also reported that Saudi Arabia contributed roughly $5 million to the Clinton Foundation around the time of the F-15 sale. And the Clinton Foundation has been subpoenaed to provide documents related to projects related to the State Department. The concern here is reinforced by a credible independent media outlet and new details are provided from researching the more recently released emails.

Thanks for the collection of emails. Here's more that struck me:

Search result: 259 emails found with the phrase "extremely sensitive", 205 with "extremely sensitive source"

Isn't the state department often supposed to protect their sources? All of the ones I looked at are about foreign countries - "extremely sensitive" information about foreign countries is arguably born classified.

"So why isn't it classified now?" Because for example, Qaddafi is dead - it doesn't need to be classified any more.

334 emails found with "Intel" (short for intelligence)

Meanwhile, Hillary is trying to get us to believe that the more than 2,100+ emails that had classified information were ALL retroactively classified. Can you imagine what the odds are of that in 31,000+ emails - that 2,100+ were retroactively classified and none were classified at the time, when emails with defense, foreign information, intelligence, etc are born classified?

If that was truly so, where are all the emails she did classify? And how did she do it without using a .gov email address - because it's on the record that she did not use one? (Oops, maybe they didn't think that one through).

Why should the 18 emails between the President and the Secretary of State be avilable to hackers and potentially put out on the internet? Why are nine more of them missing after she only deleted personal emails?

If she didn't transmit classified information (which she claims), how come the Inspector General has depositions from agents in his Intelligence Community that say they found emails with classified information at the time of transmission? And why didn't the State Department dispute that finding in their Feb 4th press conference?

Why should 100-150 FBI agents spend many man months looking at this if there was nothing to look at? Don't they have better things to do - like catch some terrorists or something?

Why did Hillary lie about the four significant points she brought up in her first press conference on this (ie she wanted to keep emails between her and Bill confidential when Bill doesn't email)?

Lots of good questions and no good answers from the Clinton camp.

Anyway, here's one more email that stuck out that I happened to stumble into:

http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/pdfs/C05788505.pdf
For: Hillary
From: Sid
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2U11 12:58 1-11v1
Re: Q's military strategy and rebel difficulties
Latest:


I'm not going to quote the whole thing- you can click the link to see it. "Q" in the subject is "Qaddafi". The context is the Libyan civil war is underway and NATO has implemented it's no fly zone - and the US Military is engaged as the email states: "forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi are feeling the effects of the western allies bombing and missile attacks, that began on March 19/20"

Incredibly (and arguably, stupidly), Hillary, the Secretary of State, emails a response to this situation to someone not cleared for classified information with "This fits our info anaysis. Thx." on an unsecure network - that was proven to be easily hacked in 2013.

The context stated another way:
there's military action going on with US forces in the middle east and the Secretary of State is confirming what the Obama Admin and US Military know about their enemy combatant and others in an unsecure email with someone who does not have security clearance for such classified information. How is that legal?

Blumenthal is basically an intelligence mercenary. How does anyone know at the time he's not selling Hillary info to others? I do think the guy is a bit of a weasel.

Hillary's response: "fits our info anaysis" is revealing and bad because it tells whoever may intercept or see the email a bunch about the US thoughts on this matter - confirming that in the eyes of the US President, the US Administration, US Intelligence and the US Military, the email has it right. Doing that potentially puts US military lives or others at risk. This email is so obviously born classified. In the worst case, it's classified erring in the side of caution because it is a discussion about a party the US is in combat against. I don't think that's unreasonable or would take a rocket scientist to figure out. What the US President, the US Administration, US Intelligence and the US Military think about an enemy combatant or a situation when they're at war is nobody's business.


How is this classified email fiasco even debatable about exposing, transmitting or revealing classified info and illegally storing classified information at her home? How can one maintain their innocence with such behavior, facts and evidence? It's so outrageous, callous and stupid that it's breathtaking. It boggles my mind how she could do this. It does undercut her assertion that she's ready to be president - because she looks so clueless with stuff like this - and a bunch of her potential future subordinates will not respect or trust her when they see behavior like this ... and that she's standing in front of the American people lying her head off again about it, over and over.

Whether they indict her or not, the GOP will be pointing this stuff out to the electorate during the general election. Why shouldn't they? If Condoleezza Rice did this, wouldn't Dems do the same thing? Sure they would. So let's not get too hypocritical.

Whether one likes Hillary or not and whether they indict her or not, Hillary has a bigger electability problem than most realize. She's served up irrefutable proof of how careless, naive and dishonest she is. You think what they did swiftboating John Kerry with bogus information was bad? Trump or whoever is going to have a field day with this - and they can pretty much prove it. It's really hard to quickly and convincingly refute the truth in an election. You can try to lie, like she has for years, but up against this, most folks except her most loyal supporters won't buy it.

Legal group submits plan to depose 7 top Clinton, State Dept. aides in email battle

Source: Washington Post

A conservative legal advocacy group submitted plans Tuesday to question under oath seven current and former top State Department officials and aides to Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton — but not Clinton herself at this point — about her use of a private email server when she was secretary of state.

Judicial Watch said its deposition plan includes Cheryl D. Mills, who was Clinton’s chief of staff at State; Huma Abedin, a top aide who served as Mills’s deputy and who now is vice chairman of Clinton’s presidential campaign; and Bryan Pagliano, a Clinton staff member during her 2008 presidential campaign who helped set up the private server.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Washington granted a request on Feb. 23 for legal discovery by Judicial Watch, which seeks to determine whether Clinton’s email arrangement thwarted federal open-records laws. After his order, Sullivan directed Judicial Watch to file a detailed plan about how it intended to proceed.

The submitted plan can be contested by lawyers from the Justice and State departments and is subject to approval by Sullivan.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-group-submits-plan-to-depose-7-top-clinton-state-dept-aides-in-email-battle/2016/03/15/b0f1e47a-ead6-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html



Here's a copy of the court document:
PLAINTIFF JUDICIAL WATCH’S PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN

Aside from :
Cheryl Mills, Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department
Huma Abedin, a long time aid who served as Mills’s deputy
Bryan Pagliano, a Clinton staff member who helped set up the private server and got immunity recently after pleading the fifth

they've also requested:
Stephen D. Mull, Executive Secretary of the State Department during Clinton time there
Lewis A. Lukens, Executive Director of the Executive Secretariat
Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management since 2007
Donald R. Reid, Senior Coordinator for Security Infrastructure, Bureau of Diplomatic Security since 2003

- more on them and how it's claimed they fit is in the linked Discovery plan.

from linked court document: "Based on information learned during discovery, the deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary. If Plaintiff [Judical Watch] believes Mrs. Clinton’s testimony is required, it will request permission from the Court at the appropriate time".


The administration is trying to run out the clock so they'll probably wait until close to the April 12th deadline to respond. They'll argue about it for maybe a couple of weeks and then the judge will need a couple of weeks to make his decision around the middle of May (about the time some say they expect the FBI and Inspector General reports to start to come out ...)

Testifying should begin roughly about 8 weeks after that, around the middle of July (about 3-4 weeks after the House Benghazi report comes out) and run through the conventions. The plan is to get the above testimony done in eight weeks. Then, around the middle of September, they may ask Hillary to come in and testify. Could be sooner if a bunch of them plead the 5th (as I expect some likely will have to because a crime has probably occurred for exposing classified information and someone is going to take the fall).

The best defense in terms of the Clinton candidacy is to try to stretch this out until after the election.

Judicial Watch has several more lawsuits going on this and recently, the GOP joined them, filing six more lawsuits on FOIAs related to Hillary's time at the State Department.

Stock up on the popcorn. The schedule for dragging Hillary through the media mud is starting to fill up ....

That's one study's cherry picking opinion

But many, many others do not agree

NAFTA at 20: One Million U.S. Jobs Lost, Higher Income Inequality

Economic Policy Institute Fast Track to Lost Jobs and Lower Wages
http://www.epi.org/blog/fast-track-to-lost-jobs-and-lower-wages/
More than 5 million U.S. manufacturing jobs were lost between 1997 and 2014, and most of those job losses were due to growing trade deficits with countries that have negotiated trade and investment deals with the United States.


Towns, house values or homes, kids educations, etc got lost along with a significant drop in income and no safety net for a lot of them.

You walk around some of the towns in the rust belt with that article and they'll beat the living shit out of you for insulting the complete devastation of their lives and the unconscionable lack of compassion.

These people learned a trade. Did a bunch of what they were supposed to. And they got the rug pulled put from under them. And the only group of folks who made out well in long term on this deal, were the 1% Bernie talks about.

The notion of what they're spinning is an affront to the millions who suffered and lost their life's savings. I could go on and on. To me, it's like claiming the bombing of Hiroshima was a good thing for Japan or the slaughter of Jews in WWII was a good thing for Israel because their spreadsheets studying those events calculated a few positive numbers.

I was on a White House think tank studying NAFTA for Bush in 1989. We knew full well what NAFTA was going to do and tried to stop it. We at least got Bush to back off. Bill comes along, doesn't study it or look carefully - at the very least in how to implement it to lessen the damage and decides to make himself part of the history books.

And these economic gains Clinton touts, we knew it was going to be short term gain for long term pain. It was obvious. "Hey, look at me!! As president my numbers look really good!!" - only if you really believe what corporate America rightfully suckered Clinton with was good for the country. It wasn't. All you have to do is objectively look around at what the country was like in the early 90s and what it is like now. A bunch of the wealth and prosperity is gone - drained out of the US to other shores. The biggest culprit for that are these trade deals.

Their spreadsheet behind that article overlooks what really happened to American human beings. To me, it is offensive. This trade deal and how it was implemented was devastation on good, honest, hard working, decent Americans, blindsided when their own country sold them out for the welfare of corporations. I don't give a shit what they try to come up with. What I'm saying will be what the history books record - not some stupid spreadsheet analysis trying to prop up some lame politicians in Washington scrambling to save their jobs.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 75 Next »