Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Transparency Candidacy - Hillary 2016
96 views
Skip to first unread message
thinbl...@gmail.com
May 27, 2016, 1:30:57 PM5/27/16
to
The Transparency Candidacy - Hillary 2016
9:02 "the most logical explanation she (Hillary Clinton) wanted to make it harder for the press and Congress to see her correspondence so they made FOIA requests more difficult by doing what? Making sure it was on a non-government server, putting on a private server, and the idea of convenience I've never been able to accept that because what's convenient about having a server in your house?" - Chuck Todd
It Feels Like Hillary Clinton Is Lying Straight Out Morning Joe MSNBC
Published on May 26, 2016
https://youtu.be/bkJE0U8Qby4?t=532
///
Why Hillary Clinton’s Emails Should Matter to Everyone
April 4, 2016 · Cassandra Fairbanks
https://followingworldchange.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/why-hillary-clintons-emails-should-matter-to-everyone/
When the discussion arises about Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, it is quickly dismissed by those on the left as being “nonsense,” “a conspiracy from right-wing nut jobs,” or people simply do not care — but they should.
Beyond the obvious issues of national security, it is important to understand why the Secretary of State would choose to use a private server instead of a .gov email address like her predecessors.
The only reason why an official would feel the need to do this is to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests — meaning they could dodge accountability and government transparency. Clinton decided that she was above the law and that she should not have to answer to, or be scrutinized, by anyone. This is a frightening quality for someone who wishes to become the leader of our nation.
This trait is further exemplified by her outright refusal to release the transcripts of her speeches to big banks on Wall Street. Her opponent, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, has made the brilliant point that in order for these speeches to be worth over $250,000 a pop they must be absolutely Shakespearean.
Her refusal to be transparent about what was said leaves many rightfully wondering if she wasn’t really paid for the content of her speeches — because let’s face it, they generally aren’t very good — so much as paid for promises that may have come with them. Without her releasing the transcripts to squash that theory, it is an entirely valid concern.
Let’s get back to the emails. There were 31,830 emails deleted by her staff without any government oversight what-so-ever. It was done using keyword searches which they deemed to be most likely to be used in “private, personal” emails. Her staff was allowed to pick and choose what to delete, including emails that may have classified intelligence. Despite their tampering, there were still 22 top-secret emails left unguarded on her server. They were left vulnerable to hackers, including from foreign governments, for the sake of her “convenience,” or so she claims.
This leaves us with two possible explanations for the email scandal, either she wanted to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests, thus dodging accountability and transparency, or she values her “convenience” over the safety and security of this nation. Neither of these scenarios scream “presidential.”
On Sunday’s edition of Meet the Press, Hillary Clinton asserted that she has not yet personally been asked to be questioned by the FBI, however, last week they began the process of setting up formal interviews with her closest aides.
Whether Clinton is indicted or not, this is an important glimpse into how Clinton handles her power. Despite the desperate cries from the left about how we must fear the big bad wolves on the right, Republican frontrunner Donald Trump is absolutely not the only one we should be worrying about.
9:02 "the most logical explanation she (Hillary Clinton) wanted to make it harder for the press and Congress to see her correspondence so they made FOIA requests more difficult by doing what? Making sure it was on a non-government server, putting on a private server, and the idea of convenience I've never been able to accept that because what's convenient about having a server in your house?" - Chuck Todd
It Feels Like Hillary Clinton Is Lying Straight Out Morning Joe MSNBC
Published on May 26, 2016
https://youtu.be/bkJE0U8Qby4?t=532
///
Why Hillary Clinton’s Emails Should Matter to Everyone
April 4, 2016 · Cassandra Fairbanks
https://followingworldchange.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/why-hillary-clintons-emails-should-matter-to-everyone/
When the discussion arises about Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, it is quickly dismissed by those on the left as being “nonsense,” “a conspiracy from right-wing nut jobs,” or people simply do not care — but they should.
Beyond the obvious issues of national security, it is important to understand why the Secretary of State would choose to use a private server instead of a .gov email address like her predecessors.
The only reason why an official would feel the need to do this is to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests — meaning they could dodge accountability and government transparency. Clinton decided that she was above the law and that she should not have to answer to, or be scrutinized, by anyone. This is a frightening quality for someone who wishes to become the leader of our nation.
This trait is further exemplified by her outright refusal to release the transcripts of her speeches to big banks on Wall Street. Her opponent, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, has made the brilliant point that in order for these speeches to be worth over $250,000 a pop they must be absolutely Shakespearean.
Her refusal to be transparent about what was said leaves many rightfully wondering if she wasn’t really paid for the content of her speeches — because let’s face it, they generally aren’t very good — so much as paid for promises that may have come with them. Without her releasing the transcripts to squash that theory, it is an entirely valid concern.
Let’s get back to the emails. There were 31,830 emails deleted by her staff without any government oversight what-so-ever. It was done using keyword searches which they deemed to be most likely to be used in “private, personal” emails. Her staff was allowed to pick and choose what to delete, including emails that may have classified intelligence. Despite their tampering, there were still 22 top-secret emails left unguarded on her server. They were left vulnerable to hackers, including from foreign governments, for the sake of her “convenience,” or so she claims.
This leaves us with two possible explanations for the email scandal, either she wanted to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests, thus dodging accountability and transparency, or she values her “convenience” over the safety and security of this nation. Neither of these scenarios scream “presidential.”
On Sunday’s edition of Meet the Press, Hillary Clinton asserted that she has not yet personally been asked to be questioned by the FBI, however, last week they began the process of setting up formal interviews with her closest aides.
Whether Clinton is indicted or not, this is an important glimpse into how Clinton handles her power. Despite the desperate cries from the left about how we must fear the big bad wolves on the right, Republican frontrunner Donald Trump is absolutely not the only one we should be worrying about.
thinbl...@gmail.com
May 27, 2016, 4:21:33 PM5/27/16
to
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:30:57 PM UTC-4, thinbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Transparency Candidacy - Hillary 2016
>
>
>
> 9:02 "the most logical explanation she (Hillary Clinton) wanted to make it harder for the press and Congress to see her correspondence so they made FOIA requests more difficult by doing what? Making sure it was on a non-government server, putting on a private server, and the idea of convenience I've never been able to accept that because what's convenient about having a server in your house?" - Chuck Todd
>
>
> It Feels Like Hillary Clinton Is Lying Straight Out Morning Joe MSNBC
> Published on May 26, 2016
> https://youtu.be/bkJE0U8Qby4?t=532
State Department claims Clinton to blame for email misuse
> The Transparency Candidacy - Hillary 2016
>
>
>
> 9:02 "the most logical explanation she (Hillary Clinton) wanted to make it harder for the press and Congress to see her correspondence so they made FOIA requests more difficult by doing what? Making sure it was on a non-government server, putting on a private server, and the idea of convenience I've never been able to accept that because what's convenient about having a server in your house?" - Chuck Todd
>
>
> It Feels Like Hillary Clinton Is Lying Straight Out Morning Joe MSNBC
> Published on May 26, 2016
> https://youtu.be/bkJE0U8Qby4?t=532
Published May 26, 2016
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/05/26/state-department-claims-clinton-to-blame-for-email-misuse/
This is a RUSH transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," May 25, 2016. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
O'REILLY: "Impact Segment" tonight. Bad news for Hillary Clinton today. As you may know, the former Secretary of State being investigated by the FBI for possible security violations because she used her private email while conducting national security business. Today, the State Department announced Mrs. Clinton's conduct violated government rules.
Here now to explain further, FOX News Chief Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano. You know, when I see these stories, they don't resonate with me anymore.
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS CHIEF JUDICIAL ANALYST: Get tired of them.
O'REILLY: Not tired of them. There is a bit of cynicism involved. And I think some of the viewers feel the same way that the system is so arcane, disorganized, complicated that people go it doesn't matter how much they find out, nothing is going to be done. But you think today is a big deal. Why?
NAPOLITANO: I do. I also think a lot of people share your view. Today is a big deal for a couple of reasons. First, it directly refutes a statement she has made dozens of times. It was allowed. We now know it was not allowed.
O'REILLY: All right. Stop. So, the State Department said today what she did using her private server would have been forbidden if she had asked.
NAPOLITANO: Correct.
O'REILLY: And she never asked?
NAPOLITANO: Correct. Which was the second point I was going to make. She never even asked.
O'REILLY: But then she will say I didn't know enough to ask.
NAPOLITANO: She signed a two-page statement under oath on her first day on the job, which was given after she had a two-hour tutorial by two FBI agents telling her about the proper care and legal obligations for state secrets. And in that oath, she swore that she had the obligation to know how to care for state secrets and to recognize them.
O'REILLY: General. It's general.
NAPOLITANO: Enough to get her a jury trial.
O'REILLY: Yes. But if this oath had said, I will not use my private server conducting State Department business, then you got her.
NAPOLITANO: You are right. It's not that specific. Because nobody, not the FBI. Not even her own IT people knew about it. Here's what is new in the report today. Her server in her house in Chappaqua went down a couple of times. And when it went down, the Blackberry wouldn't work. And the State Department IT people said here, use a state department Blackberry. And she said through her assistant Huma Abedin, no, because we are concerned with the Freedom of Information Act. So, she went dark. And she had documents verbally read to her rather than transmitted to her through the State Department email system.
O'REILLY: All right. So, she was concerned about the Freedom of Information Act knowing what she was doing?
NAPOLITANO: Yes. Now, what does this tell the FBI? This shows intent. You don't have to prove intent when you're talking about espionage. You can prove it by gross negligence. There is ample evidence of gross negligence. But avoiding the transparency laws shows a consciousness.
O'REILLY: So, let me restate so everybody understands. Two times, you're saying, her private server went down and her machine device didn't work?
NAPOLITANO: We don't know how many times but it was more than once.
O'REILLY: All right. More than once. So the State Department said, use our server and our devices and through her assistant came back no, we don't want to do it. Did they actually say because of Freedom of Information?
NAPOLITANO: Yes. Right in the email, which I had not seen before today. Bill, it's 55,000 emails.
O'REILLY: So that shows a calculation.
NAPOLITANO: Absolutely.
O'REILLY: All right? And a calculation shows that she was trying to get around the rules.
NAPOLITANO: Correct. And that feeds into the FBI argument. Now, the FBI is very smart. I believe they already knew before today everything that was in here.
O'REILLY: Do you believe that she is going to be indicted?
NAPOLITANO: I believe there is ample evidence to indict her. And the only way she wouldn't be is if the President or the Attorney General.
O'REILLY: Do you believe the FBI is going to put forth that evidence to the public?
NAPOLITANO: Yes. Whether she is indicted or not. I believe we will --
O'REILLY: Do you believe that will happen before the election?
NAPOLITANO: I believe it will happen before the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. That's two months from now.
O'REILLY: Okay. Napolitano, there he is. Thank you, Judge.
NAPOLITANO: My pleasure, Bill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXOo2EnWvn4
---------------
The fat lady sings...
https://gertiecranker.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/fat-lady2.jpg
thinbl...@gmail.com
May 28, 2016, 10:36:26 AM5/28/16
to
Andrea Mitchell | MSNBC
Published on May 27, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY4D0aVWn5U
Todd also asked Clinton about a Nov. 2010 email exchange she had with her aide Huma Abedin in which she indicated that she did not want to start using a government email account because she did not want to make her personal emails “accessible.”
Asked to explain what she meant by that, Clinton told Todd: “Nobody wants their personal emails made public. That is, I think, a very common if not unanimous feeling among people.”
But the host was not buying, he said in his discussion with Mitchell.
“What was the most logical reason to do this?” Todd asked rhetorically.
“Convenience isn’t it because it’s not a convenient thing to have a server in your house. No, it’s making it so that it’s outside the reach of the federal records law. You cannot look at it any other way. That’s the only logical reason to do it.”
“And Freedom of Information requests,” Mitchell added.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/27/chuck-todd-the-only-logical-reason-for-hillary-to-use-email-system-was-to-skirt-federal-law-video/
thinbl...@gmail.com
Jun 1, 2016, 5:49:20 PM6/1/16
to
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:30:57 PM UTC-4, thinbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Transparency Candidacy - Hillary 2016
>
>
>
> 9:02 "the most logical explanation she (Hillary Clinton) wanted to make it harder for the press and Congress to see her correspondence so they made FOIA requests more difficult by doing what? Making sure it was on a non-government server, putting on a private server, and the idea of convenience I've never been able to accept that because what's convenient about having a server in your house?" - Chuck Todd
>
>
> It Feels Like Hillary Clinton Is Lying Straight Out Morning Joe MSNBC
> Published on May 26, 2016
> https://youtu.be/bkJE0U8Qby4?t=532
>
>
> ///
>
>
> Why Hillary Clinton’s Emails Should Matter to Everyone
> April 4, 2016 · Cassandra Fairbanks
> https://followingworldchange.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/why-hillary-clintons-emails-should-matter-to-everyone/
>
Mr. Schoen served as a political adviser and pollster for President Bill Clinton, 1994-2000.
>
>
>
> 9:02 "the most logical explanation she (Hillary Clinton) wanted to make it harder for the press and Congress to see her correspondence so they made FOIA requests more difficult by doing what? Making sure it was on a non-government server, putting on a private server, and the idea of convenience I've never been able to accept that because what's convenient about having a server in your house?" - Chuck Todd
>
>
> It Feels Like Hillary Clinton Is Lying Straight Out Morning Joe MSNBC
> Published on May 26, 2016
> https://youtu.be/bkJE0U8Qby4?t=532
>
>
> ///
>
>
> Why Hillary Clinton’s Emails Should Matter to Everyone
> April 4, 2016 · Cassandra Fairbanks
> https://followingworldchange.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/why-hillary-clintons-emails-should-matter-to-everyone/
>
Clinton Might Not Be the Nominee
DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN May 31, 2016
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-might-not-be-the-nominee-1464733898
There is now more than a theoretical chance that Hillary Clinton may not be the Democratic nominee for president.
How could that happen, given that her nomination has been considered a sure thing by virtually everyone in the media and in the party itself? Consider the possibilities.
The inevitability behind Mrs. Clinton’s nomination will be in large measure eviscerated if she loses the June 7 California primary to Bernie Sanders. That could well happen.
A recent PPIC poll shows Mrs. Clinton with a 2% lead over Mr. Sanders, and a Fox News survey found the same result. Even a narrow win would give him 250 pledged delegates or more—a significant boost. California is clearly trending to Mr. Sanders, and the experience in recent open primaries has been that the Vermont senator tends to underperform in pre-election surveys and over-perform on primary and caucus days, thanks to the participation of new registrants and young voters.
To this end, data from mid-May show that there were nearly 1.5 million newly registered Democratic voters in California since Jan. 1. That’s a 218% increase in Democratic voter registrations compared with the same period in 2012, a strongly encouraging sign for Mr. Sanders.
A Sanders win in California would powerfully underscore Mrs. Clinton’s weakness as a candidate in the general election. Democratic superdelegates—chosen by the party establishment and overwhelmingly backing Mrs. Clinton, 543-44—would seriously question whether they should continue to stand behind her candidacy.
There is every reason to believe that at the convention Mr. Sanders will offer a rules change requiring superdelegates to vote for the candidate who won their state’s primary or caucus. A vote on that proposed change would almost certainly occur—and it would function as a referendum on the Clinton candidacy. If Mr. Sanders wins California, Montana and North Dakota on Tuesday and stays competitive in New Jersey, he could well be within 200 pledged delegates of Mrs. Clinton, making a vote in favor of the rules change on superdelegates more likely.
Another problem: In recent weeks the perception that Mrs. Clinton would be the strongest candidate against Donald Trump has evaporated. The Real Clear Politics polling average has Mrs. Clinton in a statistical tie with Mr. Trump, and recent surveys from ABC News/Washington Post and Fox News show her two and three points behind him, respectively.
Then there is that other crack in the argument for Mrs. Clinton’s inevitability: Bernie Sanders consistently runs stronger than she does against Mr. Trump nationally, beating him by about 10 points in a number of recent surveys.
The worries about Mr. Sanders’s strength have stirred the beginnings of a capitulation to him—by the Clinton camp, in league with the Democratic National Committee—at the convention. To placate him, they have already granted Mr. Sanders greater influence over the party platform. Two divisive figures, Cornel West and Rep. Keith Ellison, have been added to the platform committee, ensuring that the party will be pulled further left. In addition to putting Mr. Sanders’s socialist nostrums on display, the platform negotiations are likely to spur an ugly fight over the U.S. relationship with Israel.
Mrs. Clinton also faces growing legal problems. The State Department inspector general’s recent report on Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state made it abundantly clear that she broke rules and has been far from forthright in her public statements. The damning findings buttressed concerns within the party that Mrs. Clinton and her aides may not get through the government’s investigation without a finding of culpability somewhere.
With Mrs. Clinton reportedly soon to be interviewed by the FBI, suggesting that the investigation is winding up, a definitive ruling by the attorney general could be issued before the July 25 Democratic convention in Philadelphia. Given the inspector general’s report, a clean bill of health from the Justice Department is unlikely.
Finally, with Mrs. Clinton’s negative rating nearly as high as Donald Trump’s, and with voters not trusting her by a ratio of 4 to 1, Democrats face an unnerving possibility. Only a month or two ago, they were relishing the prospect of a chaotic Republican convention, with a floor fight and antiestablishment rebellion in the air. Now the messy, disastrous convention could be their own.
There are increasing rumblings within the party about how a new candidate could emerge at the convention. John Kerry, the 2004 nominee, is one possibility. But the most likely scenario is that Vice President Joe Biden—who has said that he regrets “every day” his decision not to run—enters the race.
Mr. Biden would be cast as the white knight rescuing the party, and the nation, from a possible Trump presidency. To win over Sanders supporters, he would likely choose as his running mate someone like Sen. Elizabeth Warren who is respected by the party’s left wing.
Where is President Obama in all this? So far he has largely stayed out of the campaign, other than to say that he doesn’t believe Mrs. Clinton compromised national security with her home-brew email server. But with her poll numbers dropping, her legal headaches increasing, the Sanders candidacy showing renewed vigor, and Donald Trump looming as a wrecking ball for the president’s legacy, Mr. Obama and adviser Valerie Jarrett might begin sending signals to the Democratic National Committee and to the vice president that a Biden rescue operation wouldn’t displease the White House.
All of these remain merely possibilities. But it is easier now than ever to imagine a scenario in which Hillary Clinton—whether by dint of legal or political circumstances—is not the Democratic presidential nominee.
thinbl...@gmail.com
Jun 7, 2016, 11:05:10 AM6/7/16
to
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:30:57 PM UTC-4, thinbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Transparency Candidacy - Hillary 2016
>
>
>
> 9:02 "the most logical explanation she (Hillary Clinton) wanted to make it harder for the press and Congress to see her correspondence so they made FOIA requests more difficult by doing what? Making sure it was on a non-government server, putting on a private server, and the idea of convenience I've never been able to accept that because what's convenient about having a server in your house?" - Chuck Todd
>
>
> It Feels Like Hillary Clinton Is Lying Straight Out Morning Joe MSNBC
> Published on May 26, 2016
> https://youtu.be/bkJE0U8Qby4?t=532
Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media
>
>
>
> 9:02 "the most logical explanation she (Hillary Clinton) wanted to make it harder for the press and Congress to see her correspondence so they made FOIA requests more difficult by doing what? Making sure it was on a non-government server, putting on a private server, and the idea of convenience I've never been able to accept that because what's convenient about having a server in your house?" - Chuck Todd
>
>
> It Feels Like Hillary Clinton Is Lying Straight Out Morning Joe MSNBC
> Published on May 26, 2016
> https://youtu.be/bkJE0U8Qby4?t=532
Glenn Greenwald June 7 2016
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/
Last night, Associated Press – on a day when nobody voted – surprised everyone by abruptly declaring the Democratic Party primary over and Hillary Clinton the victor. The decree, issued the night before the California primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very close race, was based on the media organization’s survey of “superdelegates”: the Democratic Party’s 720 insiders, corporate donors and officials whose votes for the presidential nominee count the same as the actually elected delegates. AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of the decisive superdelegates who said this.
Although the Sanders campaign rejected the validity of AP’s declaration – on the ground that the superdelegates do not vote until the convention and he intends to try to persuade them to vote for him – most major media outlets followed the projection and declared Clinton the winner.
This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization – incredibly – conceals.
-----------------
The Department Inspector General in January noted that the State Department is particularly weak among Obama administration agencies when it comes to fulfilling the obligations of this law. The IG said that the responses to these requests are deficient, that there are not enough personnel at the State Department to carry out all the requests and State Department leaders have not played a meaningful role in making any improvements
and at a certain point, one begins to wonder if these weaknesses are deliberate and that these efforts to conceal information do not conceal a certain disdain for the public and your right to know.
Tapper Blasts State Dept. Stonewalling FOIA Request on Hillary, Trade Deal for Post-Election
By Curtis Houck | June 6, 2016
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2016/06/06/tapper-blasts-state-dept-stonewalling-foia-request-hillary-trade
moviePig
Jun 7, 2016, 11:14:20 AM6/7/16
to
On 6/7/2016 11:05 AM, thinbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:30:57 PM UTC-4, thinbl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The Transparency Candidacy - Hillary 2016
>>
>>
>>
>> 9:02 "the most logical explanation she (Hillary Clinton) wanted to make it harder for the press and Congress to see her correspondence so they made FOIA requests more difficult by doing what? Making sure it was on a non-government server, putting on a private server, and the idea of convenience I've never been able to accept that because what's convenient about having a server in your house?" - Chuck Todd
>>
>>
>> It Feels Like Hillary Clinton Is Lying Straight Out Morning Joe MSNBC
>> Published on May 26, 2016
>> https://youtu.be/bkJE0U8Qby4?t=532
>
>
>
> Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media
> Glenn Greenwald June 7 2016
> https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/
>
>
>
> Last night, Associated Press – on a day when nobody voted – surprised everyone by abruptly declaring the Democratic Party primary over and Hillary Clinton the victor. The decree, issued the night before the California primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very close race, was based on the media organization’s survey of “superdelegates”: the Democratic Party’s 720 insiders, corporate donors and officials whose votes for the presidential nominee count the same as the actually elected delegates. AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of the decisive superdelegates who said this.
>
> Although the Sanders campaign rejected the validity of AP’s declaration – on the ground that the superdelegates do not vote until the convention and he intends to try to persuade them to vote for him – most major media outlets followed the projection and declared Clinton the winner.
>
> This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization – incredibly – conceals.
>
> ...
> On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:30:57 PM UTC-4, thinbl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The Transparency Candidacy - Hillary 2016
>>
>>
>>
>> 9:02 "the most logical explanation she (Hillary Clinton) wanted to make it harder for the press and Congress to see her correspondence so they made FOIA requests more difficult by doing what? Making sure it was on a non-government server, putting on a private server, and the idea of convenience I've never been able to accept that because what's convenient about having a server in your house?" - Chuck Todd
>>
>>
>> It Feels Like Hillary Clinton Is Lying Straight Out Morning Joe MSNBC
>> Published on May 26, 2016
>> https://youtu.be/bkJE0U8Qby4?t=532
>
>
>
> Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media
> Glenn Greenwald June 7 2016
> https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/
>
>
>
> Last night, Associated Press – on a day when nobody voted – surprised everyone by abruptly declaring the Democratic Party primary over and Hillary Clinton the victor. The decree, issued the night before the California primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very close race, was based on the media organization’s survey of “superdelegates”: the Democratic Party’s 720 insiders, corporate donors and officials whose votes for the presidential nominee count the same as the actually elected delegates. AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of the decisive superdelegates who said this.
>
> Although the Sanders campaign rejected the validity of AP’s declaration – on the ground that the superdelegates do not vote until the convention and he intends to try to persuade them to vote for him – most major media outlets followed the projection and declared Clinton the winner.
>
> This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization – incredibly – conceals.
>
If this story had broken last week, I'd wonder whether Sanders might be
brilliantly behind it.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
A Friend
Jun 7, 2016, 2:08:11 PM6/7/16
to
In article <5756e4c4$0$31212$c3e8da3$dd96...@news.astraweb.com>,
It *did* break already -- not quite two weeks ago -- when the AP worked
exactly the same story regarding Trump. The AP interviewed unbound
delegates, did a head count, and declared Trump the presumptive nominee
based on what the North Dakotan delegates had told them. Glenn
Greenwald seems surprised by the AP having done the same thing
regarding Democrats. He also seems surprised that the AP is not bound
by Democratic Party rules. Glenn Greenwald really needs a cup of
coffee.
exactly the same story regarding Trump. The AP interviewed unbound
delegates, did a head count, and declared Trump the presumptive nominee
based on what the North Dakotan delegates had told them. Glenn
Greenwald seems surprised by the AP having done the same thing
regarding Democrats. He also seems surprised that the AP is not bound
by Democratic Party rules. Glenn Greenwald really needs a cup of
coffee.
FPP
Jun 7, 2016, 6:06:18 PM6/7/16
to
media whore that he is, is making the case.
The same prediction was made when Trump clinched it... but where was
the outrage, then?
--
“The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to
men he knows to be idiots." H.L. Mencken
See: "Donald J. Trump", for reference.
thinbl...@gmail.com
Jun 28, 2016, 9:44:04 AM6/28/16
to
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:30:57 PM UTC-4, thinbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Transparency Candidacy - Hillary 2016
>
>
>
> 9:02 "the most logical explanation she (Hillary Clinton) wanted to make it harder for the press and Congress to see her correspondence so they made FOIA requests more difficult by doing what? Making sure it was on a non-government server, putting on a private server, and the idea of convenience I've never been able to accept that because what's convenient about having a server in your house?" - Chuck Todd
>
>
> It Feels Like Hillary Clinton Is Lying Straight Out Morning Joe MSNBC
> Published on May 26, 2016
> https://youtu.be/bkJE0U8Qby4?t=532
>
>
> ///
>
>
> Why Hillary Clinton’s Emails Should Matter to Everyone
> April 4, 2016 · Cassandra Fairbanks
> https://followingworldchange.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/why-hillary-clintons-emails-should-matter-to-everyone/
>
>
>
>
> When the discussion arises about Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, it is quickly dismissed by those on the left as being “nonsense,” “a conspiracy from right-wing nut jobs,” or people simply do not care — but they should.
>
> Beyond the obvious issues of national security, it is important to understand why the Secretary of State would choose to use a private server instead of a .gov email address like her predecessors.
>
> The only reason why an official would feel the need to do this is to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests — meaning they could dodge accountability and government transparency. Clinton decided that she was above the law and that she should not have to answer to, or be scrutinized, by anyone. This is a frightening quality for someone who wishes to become the leader of our nation.
Another 165 pages of Clinton emails released, including some she deleted
>
>
>
> 9:02 "the most logical explanation she (Hillary Clinton) wanted to make it harder for the press and Congress to see her correspondence so they made FOIA requests more difficult by doing what? Making sure it was on a non-government server, putting on a private server, and the idea of convenience I've never been able to accept that because what's convenient about having a server in your house?" - Chuck Todd
>
>
> It Feels Like Hillary Clinton Is Lying Straight Out Morning Joe MSNBC
> Published on May 26, 2016
> https://youtu.be/bkJE0U8Qby4?t=532
>
>
> ///
>
>
> Why Hillary Clinton’s Emails Should Matter to Everyone
> April 4, 2016 · Cassandra Fairbanks
> https://followingworldchange.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/why-hillary-clintons-emails-should-matter-to-everyone/
>
>
>
>
> When the discussion arises about Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, it is quickly dismissed by those on the left as being “nonsense,” “a conspiracy from right-wing nut jobs,” or people simply do not care — but they should.
>
> Beyond the obvious issues of national security, it is important to understand why the Secretary of State would choose to use a private server instead of a .gov email address like her predecessors.
>
> The only reason why an official would feel the need to do this is to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests — meaning they could dodge accountability and government transparency. Clinton decided that she was above the law and that she should not have to answer to, or be scrutinized, by anyone. This is a frightening quality for someone who wishes to become the leader of our nation.
BY MICHAEL BIESECKER, ASSOCIATED PRESS June 27, 2016
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/another-165-pages-of-clinton-emails-released-including-some-she-deleted/
WASHINGTON — Another 165 pages of emails from Hillary Clinton’s time at the State Department surfaced Monday, including nearly three dozen that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee failed to hand over last year that were sent through her private server.
The latest emails were released under court order by the State Department to the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch. The batch includes 34 new emails Clinton exchanged through her private account with her deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin. The aide, who also had a private email account on Clinton’s home server, later gave her copies to the government.
The emails were not among the 55,000 pages of work-related messages that Clinton turned over to the agency in response to public records lawsuits seeking copies of her official correspondence. They include a March 22, 2009, message where the then-secretary of state discusses how her official records would be kept.
“I have just realized I have no idea how my papers are treated at State,” Clinton wrote to Abedin and a second aide. “Who manages both my personal and official files? … I think we need to get on this asap to be sure we know and design the system we want.”
In a blistering audit released last month, the State Department’s inspector general that concluded Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup violated federal records-keeping standards and could have left sensitive material vulnerable to hackers.
The audit also cited a then-unreleased copy of a November 2010 email Clinton sent Abedin in which the secretary discussed using a government email account, expressing concern that she didn’t want “any risk of the personal being accessible.”
Clinton never used a government account that was set up for her, instead continuing to rely on her private server until leaving office in 2013. Though Clinton’s work-related emails were government records, she didn’t turn over copies until more than 30 lawsuits were filed, including one by The Associated Press.
Before providing her correspondence, Clinton and her lawyers withheld and subsequently deleted tens of thousands of messages that she claimed were personal, such as emails about her daughter’s wedding plans, family vacations, yoga routines and condolence notes.
With the new release Monday, more than 50 work-related emails sent or received by Clinton have since surfaced that were not among those she provided.
Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon did not immediately respond Monday to a message seeking comment. Last week, Fallon told AP that Clinton had provided “all potentially work-related emails” that were still in her possession when she received the 2014 request from the State Department.
“Secretary Clinton had some emails with Huma that Huma did not have, and Huma had some emails with Secretary Clinton that Secretary Clinton did not have,” Fallon said.
Fallon declined to say whether Clinton deleted any work-related emails before they were reviewed by her legal team.
Dozens of the emails sent or received by Clinton through her private server were later determined to contain classified material. The FBI has been investigating for months whether Clinton’s use of the private email server imperiled government secrets. Agents recently interviewed several of Clinton’s top aides, including Abedin.
As part of the probe, Clinton turned over the hard drive from her email server to the FBI. It had been wiped clean, and Clinton has said she did not keep copies of the emails she choose to withhold.
--------------
Get It Right Next Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HEwUwNRnlo
thinbl...@gmail.com
Jul 31, 2016, 2:27:59 PM7/31/16
to
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/XV4_QU_mktU/idllL8PeAwAJ
> The Transparency Candidacy - Hillary 2016
>
>
>
> 9:02 "the most logical explanation she (Hillary Clinton) wanted to make it harder for the press and Congress to see her correspondence so they made FOIA requests more difficult by doing what? Making sure it was on a non-government server, putting on a private server, and the idea of convenience I've never been able to accept that because what's convenient about having a server in your house?" - Chuck Todd
> It Feels Like Hillary Clinton Is Lying Straight Out Morning Joe MSNBC
> Published on May 26, 2016
> https://youtu.be/bkJE0U8Qby4?t=532
Clinton on Fox re emails: "Director Comey said my answers were truthful and consistent w what I said w what I told the American people."
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/759743686087417856
This is such a gargantuan, easily provable lie
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/759767926329208833
Hillary Clinton vs. James Comey: Email Scandal Supercut
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc
> The Transparency Candidacy - Hillary 2016
>
>
>
> 9:02 "the most logical explanation she (Hillary Clinton) wanted to make it harder for the press and Congress to see her correspondence so they made FOIA requests more difficult by doing what? Making sure it was on a non-government server, putting on a private server, and the idea of convenience I've never been able to accept that because what's convenient about having a server in your house?" - Chuck Todd
> It Feels Like Hillary Clinton Is Lying Straight Out Morning Joe MSNBC
> Published on May 26, 2016
> https://youtu.be/bkJE0U8Qby4?t=532
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/759743686087417856
This is such a gargantuan, easily provable lie
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/759767926329208833
Hillary Clinton vs. James Comey: Email Scandal Supercut
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc
thinbl...@gmail.com
Apr 28, 2017, 11:44:53 AM4/28/17
to
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:30:57 PM UTC-4, thinbl...@gmail.com wrote:
Bad news: You can’t read it.
According to Politico, the report is the long-awaited result of Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney’s investigation into the DCCC’s weaknesses, which were evident in the disaster that was the 2016 election. Those weaknesses allegedly revolve around the ways the DCCC raises and spends money but, again, who really knows:
Only about two-dozen lawmakers showed up for the presentation, which sources described as “dense but thorough.”
But members were not allowed to have copies of the report and may view it only under the watchful eyes of DCCC staff.
We are talking about a report on the status of the party’s congressional campaign arm, not The Book of Kells. Unless it’s written on precious vellum using ink squeezed directly from the hearts of elderly scribes, there’s no good reason for the secrecy. The DCCC’s official explanation—that the report is meant as internal analysis not intended for “public consumption”—is simply not persuasive.
This latest incident is another data point in a troubling pattern. At any hint it may be asked to account publicly for its failures, the Democratic Party pulls up its drawbridge and retreats deep into itself. It does not seem to grasp that, as a political party, it has an obligation to be transparent to its supporters. It owes those supporters something. At the moment, it specifically owes them explanations about its weak and miserable state.
Why won’t the DCCC release its autopsy report?
Sarah Jones
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/142355/wont-dccc-release-autopsy-report
thinbl...@gmail.com
Jun 15, 2018, 5:01:55 PM6/15/18
to
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 1:30:57 PM UTC-4, thinbl...@gmail.com wrote:
James Bovard, June 15, 2018
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/06/15/inspector-general-report-clinton-emails-secrecy-column/704890002/
The 500-page inspector general's report released Thursday reveals how unjustified secrecy and poor decisions helped ravage the credibility of both Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the FBI.
Yesterday’s Inspector General report on the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton contained plenty of bombshells, including a promise by lead FBI investigator Peter Strzok that “We’ll stop” Donald Trump from becoming president. The report reveals how unjustified secrecy and squirrelly decisions helped ravage the credibility of both Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the FBI. But few commentators are recognizing the vast peril to democracy posed by the sweeping prerogatives of federal agencies.
The FBI’s investigation of Clinton was spurred by her decision to set up a private server to handle her email during her four years as secretary of state. The server in her Chappaqua, N.Y. mansion was insecure and exposed emails with classified information to detection by foreign sources and others.
Clinton effectively exempted herself from the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The State Department ignored 17 FOIA requests for her emails prior to 2014 and insisted it required 75 years to disclose emails of Clinton's top aides. A federal judge and the State Department inspector general slammed the FOIA stonewalling.
Clinton’s private email server was not publicly disclosed until she received a congressional subpoena in 2015. A few months later, the FBI Counterintelligence Division opened a criminal investigation of the “potential unauthorized storage of classified information on an unauthorized system.”
The IG report gives the impression that the FBI treated Hillary Clinton and her coterie like royalty — or at least like personages worthy of endless deference. When Bleachbit software or hammers were used to destroy email evidence under congressional subpoena, the FBI treated it as a harmless error. The IG report “questioned whether the use of a subpoena or search warrant might have encouraged Clinton, her lawyers ... or others to search harder for the missing devices [containing email], or ensured that they were being honest that they could not find them.” Instead, FBI agents worked on “rapport building” with Clinton aides.
Indictment justified
FBI investigators shrugged off brazen deceit. An unnamed FBI agent on the case responded to a fellow FBI agent who asked how an interview went with a witness who worked with the Clintons at their Chappaqua residence: “Awesome. Lied his a__ off. Went from never inside the scif [sensitive compartmented information facility] at res [residence], to looked in when it was being constructed, to removed the trash twice, to troubleshot the secure fax with HRC a couple times, to everytime there was a secure fax i did it with HRC. Ridic.” When his colleague replied that “would be funny if he was the only guy charged n this deal,” he replied, “aint noone gonna do s___” as far as filing charges.
Perhaps the most frequent phrase in the IG report is “According to the FD-302 ...” This refers to the memo an FBI agent writes after interviewing targets or witnesses in an investigation. Relying on Form 302s (instead of recordings interviews) maximizes the discretion of FBI officials, allowing them to frame issues or create a narrative or buttress charges of lying to a federal agent.
The FBI waited until the end of the investigation to interview Clinton and had decided to absolve her “absent a confession from Clinton,” the IG report noted. There was no recording and no transcript; instead, a 302 report allowed FBI Director James Comey to proceed with the preordained “not guilty” finding. Clinton had received numerous classified emails (some of which were marked with a (C)) on her private email server. The IG report notes, “According to the FD-302 from Clinton’s interview, Clinton told the FBI that she did not know what the ‘(C)’ meant and ‘speculated it was a reference to paragraphs ranked in alphabetical order.’”
The IG noted, “Witnesses told us, and contemporaneous emails show, that the FBI and Department officials who attended Clinton’s interview found that her claim that she did not understand the significance of the ‘(C)’ marking strained credulity. [FBI] Agent 1 stated, ‘I filed that in the bucket of hard to impossible to believe.’” Comey told IG investigators that “by her demeanor, she was credible and open and all that kind of stuff.” But a video recording of the showdown (especially the alphabet line) would have been invaluable to Americans who doubted Clinton and the FBI.
Anti-Trump texts spurred the IG to refer 5 FBI employees to the FBI for possible disciplinary penalties. One FBI agent labeled Trump supporters as “retarded” and declared “I’m with her” [Hillary Clinton]. Another FBI employee texted that “Trump’s supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS.” One FBI lawyer texted that he was “devastated” by Trump’s election and declared “Viva la Resistance!” and “I never really liked the Republic anyway.” The same person became the “primary FBI attorney assigned to [Russian election interference] investigation beginning in early 2017,” the IG noted.
Lack of transparency
The IG report deals briefly with a kerfuffle over the FOIA release of Clinton Foundation documents a week before the 2016 election. Regrettably, the IG overlooked FBI’s horrendous record on FOIA compliance, spurring bitter complaints even from its former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. A federal judge slammed the agency for claiming it would require 17 years to fulfill a FOIA request on surveillance of antiwar activists in the 1960s. The FBI also makes ludicrous redactions to FOIA releases — such as deleting the names of Clark Kent and Lois Lane from a theatrical adaptation of Superman because disclosing them would “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
The IG report illustrates the vast sway that federal agencies sometimes seek over what Americans are permitted to know about candidates and their government. Unfortunately, this coroner’s inquest into 2016 chicaneries will do nothing to prevent covert federal meddling from tilting future elections.
And as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wisely warned in 2012 that “lack of transparency eats away like a cancer at the trust people should have in their government.”
Connor
Jun 17, 2018, 10:36:12 PM6/17/18
to
Quit spamming r.a.t with OT postings!!
Or are you so stupid that you think anything mentioned on TV news is on topic? Bwahahaha you probably are that stupid!!
Or are you so stupid that you think anything mentioned on TV news is on topic? Bwahahaha you probably are that stupid!!
thinbl...@gmail.com
Jun 17, 2018, 11:17:10 PM6/17/18
to
On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:36:12 PM UTC-4, Connor wrote:
> Quit spamming r.a.t with OT postings!!
>
> Or are you so stupid that you think anything mentioned on TV news is on topic? Bwahahaha you probably are that stupid!!
My mama always said, usenet is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get. Sometimes you get a nut.
> Quit spamming r.a.t with OT postings!!
>
> Or are you so stupid that you think anything mentioned on TV news is on topic? Bwahahaha you probably are that stupid!!
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/kjU-FPN5JRI/wrhrYVESBQAJ
thinbl...@gmail.com
Dec 6, 2018, 8:33:51 PM12/6/18
to
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec.arts.tv/XV4_QU_mktU/idllL8PeAwAJ
BREAKING: Federal Court Orders Discovery Plan in 10 Days Whether Hillary’s Private Server an Intentional Attempt to Evade FOIA
Cristina Laila by Cristina Laila December 6, 2018
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/12/breaking-federal-court-orders-discovery-plan-in-10-days-whether-hillarys-private-server-an-intentional-attempt-to-evade-foia/
Cristina Laila by Cristina Laila December 6, 2018
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/12/breaking-federal-court-orders-discovery-plan-in-10-days-whether-hillarys-private-server-an-intentional-attempt-to-evade-foia/
0 new messages