HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » LAS14 » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »

LAS14

Profile Information

Member since: Tue Feb 9, 2016, 02:20 PM
Number of posts: 9,520

Journal Archives

Hey, let's all of us Democrats jump on this bandwagon.

Bernie has dubbed Donald "Mr. Macho." I, as a Hillary supporter, can really latch on to this!

Jerry Brown endorses Clinton!

An Open Letter to California Democrats and Independents
POSTED BY JERRY BROWN ON MAY 31, 2016

On Tuesday, June 7, I have decided to cast my vote for Hillary Clinton because I believe this is the only path forward to win the presidency and stop the dangerous candidacy of Donald Trump.

I have closely watched the primaries and am deeply impressed with how well Bernie Sanders has done. He has driven home the message that the top one percent has unfairly captured way too much of America’s wealth, leaving the majority of people far behind. In 1992, I attempted a similar campaign.

For her part, Hillary Clinton has convincingly made the case that she knows how to get things done and has the tenacity and skill to advance the Democratic agenda. Voters have responded by giving her approximately 3 million more votes – and hundreds more delegates – than Sanders. If Clinton were to win only 10 percent of the remaining delegates – wildly improbable – she would still exceed the number needed for the nomination. In other words, Clinton’s lead is insurmountable and Democrats have shown – by millions of votes – that they want her as their nominee.

http://www.jerrybrown.org/an_open_letter_to_california_democrats_and_independents

I will be SO GLAD when it is June 8th!!!!! nt

This reply deserves its own post.

Enough of the smears about the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511513340#post15

And here's one I posted a while ago.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1865319

It's sobering/scary how easy it is to find citation on the internet that don't tell the truth. "But I found it on Google, so it must be true!"

A lot of stuff about the e-mail issue.

I’ve been made a little dizzy by the attacks on Hillary re e-mail and didn’t always have responses at the tip of my tongue. So I’ve done some research. Here’s what I’ve found.

1 – Hillary compromised national security.

The State Department OIG investigation does not address classified information. Clinton’s personal e-mail was for un-classified information only. The FBI investigation is the one looking into handling of classified information. The OIG report does not contain any information about breaches of Clinton’s e-mail, although it does mention some e-mails questioning certain messages. In fact, according to some experts, her e-mail was more secure than the Dept of State’s system for non-classified information. For one thing, it was formerly used by President Bill Clinton, and for another, it benefited from the physical security supplied by the secret service, much like the classified system at the state department.

“As for the department’s unclassified system, the inspector general's report demonstrates that it was horribly insecure, and that hackers obtained terabytes worth of documents out of it; on the other hand, Clinton’s email system was quite secure and, when evidence emerged that someone was trying to hack in, the security officer overseeing the server immediately shut it down, then notified the relevant officials at State. In other words, while boxcars of documents were digitally pulled out of the agency, there is no evidence a single email was snagged out of Clinton’s server. So it could be the Clinton arrangement didn’t follow the security procedures laid out in the federal regulations—the inspector general did not reach a conclusion as to whether it did or not—but, as often happens, private security contractors did a better job than the government.”

Hillary Clinton did not send e-mails including any information that was classified at the time, with the exception of responding to/forwarding e-mails sent to her by Sidney Blumenthal, a private citizen. These contained classified information which Blumenthal had obtained from public sources. She did not originate them nor was she responsible for their being made publicly available. She pointed out the absurdity of assigning her responsibility for this breach in either a debate, but probably in a town hall meeting, since I can’t find it in debate transcripts.

2 – She violated State Department policies.

The State Department had not promulgated any policy prohibiting the use of private e-mail servers. That was clarified in legislation in 2014, after Clinton had left office.

The State Department required people using personal e-mail to make hardcopies of all of their e-mails to comply with the federal requirement that all communications be preserved.

- Clinton had electronic backup, a much more appropriate approach in 2008-2012, and turned over 55,000 pages on paper -- just as the 1950's law required. She did not make the paper copies until after she left, which was a technical violation.
Here is an excellent description of what the real world of working with the State Department’s antiquated systems was like.

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-not-scandal-464414

3 – She is a liar.

- She’s been saying that a private server was allowed, but now she’s saying she thought it was allowed.

At the time the server was installed there were no state department regulations applying to personal servers. In response to the OIG investigation State Department IT staff said that if she had asked, she would have been told it wasn’t allowed. We don’t know when they made this decision, but in the face of a changing set of circumstances (State Dept now claims it wouldn’t have allowed it), she adjusts her response in a rational way.

- She said, "I'm more than ready to talk to anybody anytime” but the report said she declined to be interviewed by the OIG.

OK. So in the heat of a debate or an interview she said something she wanted to back away from later in the face of new circumstances. I don’t claim to know the details, but I do understand that total consistency is never found in political campaigns. To assume that someone was lying everytime they have to change their position in the face of new circumstances is a very grim way of relating to ones fellow human beings indeed.

- She said that personal e-mail was allowed.

It was. The State Department even specified different ways for preserving copies than the ways used for state.gov.

- She said the State Department approved of her use of private e-mail/server. CLINTON: "What I did was allowed. It was allowed by the State Department. The State Department has confirmed that." - AP interview, September 2015
In this case I expect early on someone had, indeed, sometime before Sept 2015, told her it was "OK," since personal e-mails were definitely OK and private servers hadn't been addressed. Of course people who are convinced Hillary is “a liar” won’t be persuaded by this, but imagine yourself trying to explain a system like this in sound bites.

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-not-scandal-464414

Does anyone know where I can find searchable transcripts....

... of the Democratic debates?

tia
las

Request for input from Hillary Group (HCG)

Hello Hillary Group,

I would love to just rest in my strongly held belief that this e-mail thing is a flap like Vince Foster and Travelgate. But I feel compelled to answer back in GDP. And then there’s the puzzle part. I’m a clarity junky, and this whole thing makes me dizzy. I want to get it straight in my own mind. I’ve tried to list all of the things Hillary’s critics have extracted from the e-mail flap and answer them.

I’m asking any of you with knowledge and energy to edit this before I post in GDP. Please add things that you’ve seen that ought to get shot down. And please correct any misinformation or confusion.

TIA
LAS

1 – Hillary compromised national security.

The State Department OIG investigation does not address classified information. Clinton’s personal e-mail was for un-classified information only. The FBI investigation is the one looking into handling of classified information. The OIG report does not contain any information about breaches of Clinton’s e-mail, although it does mention some e-mails questioning certain messages. In fact, according to some experts, her e-mail was more secure than the Dept of State’s system for non-classified information.

“As for the department’s unclassified system, the inspector general's report demonstrates that it was horribly insecure, and that hackers obtained terabytes worth of documents out of it; on the other hand, Clinton’s email system was quite secure and, when evidence emerged that someone was trying to hack in, the security officer overseeing the server immediately shut it down, then notified the relevant officials at State. In other words, while boxcars of documents were digitally pulled out of the agency, there is no evidence a single email was snagged out of Clinton’s server. So it could be the Clinton arrangement didn’t follow the security procedures laid out in the federal regulations—the inspector general did not reach a conclusion as to whether it did or not—but, as often happens, private security contractors did a better job than the government.”

Hillary Clinton did not send e-mails including any information that was classified at the time, with the exception of responding to/forwarding e-mails sent to her by Sidney Blumenthal. These contained classified information which Blumenthal had obtained from public sources. She did not originate them nor was she responsible for their being made publicly available.

2 – She violated State Department policies.

The State Department had not promulgated any policy prohibiting the use of private e-mail servers. That was clarified in legislation in 2014, after Clinton had left office.
The State Department required people using personal e-mail to make hardcopies of all of their e-mails to comply with the federal requirement that all communications be preserved.

- Clinton had electronic backup, a much more appropriate approach in 2008-2012, and turned over 55,000 pages on paper -- just as the 1950's law required. She did not make the paper copies until after she left, which was a technical violation.
Here is an excellent description of what the real world of working with the State Department’s antiquated systems was like.
http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-not-scandal-464414

3 – She is a liar.

- She’s been saying that a private server was allowed, but now she’s saying she thought it was allowed.

At the time the server was installed there were no state department regulations applying to personal servers. In response to the OIG investigation State Department IT staff said that if she had asked, she would have been told it wasn’t allowed. We don’t know when they made this decision, but in the face of a changing set of circumstances (State Dept now claims it wouldn’t have allowed it), she adjusts her response in a rational way.

- She said, "I'm more than ready to talk to anybody anytime” but the report said she declined to be interviewed by the OIG.

OK. So in the heat of a debate or an interview she said something she wanted to back away from later in the face of new circumstances. I don’t claim to know the details, but I do understand that total consistency is never found in political campaigns.

- She said that personal e-mail was allowed.

It was. The State Department even specified different ways for preserving copies than the ways used for state.gov.

- She said the State Department approved of her use of private e-mail/server (claims vary).

She never said they approved. They didn’t say anything. Regulations allowed for private e-mail, and the use of a private server was never addressed in their regulations.

4 – She didn’t turn over the first 30,000 early e-mails.

HILLARY GROUP, One answer is a quote from her IT department saying they couldn’t find them. Does anyone know where that is? Is it in the OIG report? I couldn’t find it.

HILLARY GROUP – CAN YOU THINK OF OTHER THINGS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED?

Thank you, Hillary!!!

"As for the department’s unclassified system, the inspector general's report demonstrates that it was horribly insecure, and that hackers obtained terabytes worth of documents out of it; on the other hand, Clinton’s email system was quite secure and, when evidence emerged that someone was trying to hack in, the security officer overseeing the server immediately shut it down, then notified the relevant officials at State. In other words, while boxcars of documents were digitally pulled out of the agency, there is no evidence a single email was snagged out of Clinton’s server."

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-not-scandal-464414

So hang in there, folks.... Remember Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Benghazi, etc., etc.

Is Bernie under federal investigation?

https://www.scribd.com/doc/313932605/Toensing-Letter-to-Senator-Sanders-Re-Burlington-College-Documents

Note in particular the last paragraph: "According to news reports this matter is already a matter under federal investigation." This matter being a senator influencing a loan to benefit a family member.

If so, why aren't we hearing more about it???

Just a reminder. Hillary was not investigated by the ...

... State Department. The OIG investigated the department's e-mail/security practices. As I've said elsewhere (thanks again to BeachBumBob), the e-mail flap is like the Whitewater flap is like the Benghazi flap is like the Vince Foster flap is like....

Unfortunately those of you who think these were more than flaps require lots of time and effort to remind you of the complex truth. And you're not interested, as far as I can see.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 Next »