I Can Imagine It, I Would Prefer Not To Experience It.
Being the knee-jerk liberal, unicorn loving, 4 Freedoms embroidering sort of Democrat that I am, when the story about Hillary and her server was broken over a year ago, I personally found it a disqualifier. I found the whole setup, used to ignore and subvert the concept of transparency, as well as the FOIA and legitimate Congressional oversight was repugnant. Democrats as a Party had rightfully vilified Karl Rove and the Bush White House for similar behavior (conducting government business on RNC servers). Hillary at that time added her voice to the oh no! chorus when we were all demanding special prosecutors and investigations and frog marches. But prior public condemnation aside, in reality Hillary went all in on the private server technique for hiding things that one wants hidden and we discover that the Democrats are all okey dokey with it. Nothing to see here, who cares about the FOIA, transparency, accountability, sunshine laws and corruption prevention, right?
There is one bromide I wish I could stop using. I wish I would stop finding myself in situations where it is my reflexive thought - "The scales dropped from my eyes". But when this thing broke, I could hardly walk without kicking aside scales on an hourly basis. No one cared. What I thought were liberal blogs didn't care, Democrats/liberals I had formerly admired (yes, you Howard Dean, Jennifer Granholm, et al) didn't care, media people I had formerly trusted didn't care, I was pretty much alone in feeling shocked by the conduct of a public official who is fourth in line for the Presidency. I did try to write about how awful I thought it was and was roundly hounded and chastised for my trouble, so I basically gave up. You can't make people care about something if they are determined not to. But I was sad and (sniff!) disillusioned about politics in general and my default party in particular. I wrote blog post at DK about it: Movie Night For Democrats and then I moved along for the most part.
But not everyone else did. As it turns out, there were a lot of people who did care; many if not most of them were/are conservatives and Republicans as it turns out. I'm sure they were excited about a potential new cudgel to use on Hillary, but they were hampered by their own previous behavior and had to simply fondle the fresh club and put it away in a drawer, mostly unused. A few of them managed to get excited about stuff like record-keeping violations, absconding with government property (communications), FOIA violations, but they couldn't really get the crowd lathered up. But then something happened that changed the whole ballgame - classified information and the potential risk to national security.
I google and try to remain current on what is being reported on this topic, regardless of the source, simply so I can calibrate my own status of political disaster readiness for the Democrats- verdant green proceed on our merry way, sunny yellow with just a few clouds, orange orange jumpsuit reference time, or cherry red man the lifeboats, suit up Joe Biden time. Current conclusion:
My friends, the Democrats can blather about nothingburgers and over classification and all the other protective garb they have draped Hillary's big problem with, but it is simply not going to go away. The conservative half of the country absolutely believes that she is not fit to be President and their media is obsessed with it - it has displaced Benghazi as the new shiny object only with a lot more luster than Benghazi ever had since there is some actual gold mixed in with the dross. The RNC put up today a new website with their own custom spin on Hillary's server - it is strictly National security related which is smart on their part because they don't have a matching cudgel we can deploy against them, as far as I know. Yes Colin Powell had a couple of emails but nothing on the scope and scale of Hillary's collection.
Cut to last night. It blows my mind that I am watching a Democratic debate where the leading contender is asked in all seriousness by the moderator "If you are indicted (over the emails) will you drop out of the race?" or words to that effect.
The crux of this post is that the question was asked in the first place. The Clinton Email Imbroglio takes up a huge amount of column inches and in the conservative media of this country and to a lesser degree the mainstream media, and as a result has carved out brain space in the political cortex. A large portion of the country and the electorate believes that she DID do something wrong/illegal/unethical/stupid and that her server and what was on her server disqualifies her from the Presidency. It appears that many Democrats believe that they can simply continue to slough the issue off as a "right wing smear" and proceed as normal.
So, what do you think? Will the question she was asked at the debate remain rhetorical or will Democrats have to wake up and discover the nightmare is a reality? On my political disaster scale, what color would you say the threat level is at?
(Updated to add sentence with my political disaster scale- paragraph 4.)
Comments
Immunity granted to employee of hers
Why would a system grant immunity to someone unless they were going to be called in front of a grand jury?
She can NOT be the nominee.
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/08/hillarys_inevitability_lie_why_the_media...
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/09/it_should_be_over_for_hillary_party_elit...
Bill Curry worked in the Clinton Administration - he knows what he's talking about from the inside.
Think it was DKM who had a post up here yesterday, about accepting the consequences of the Democrats losing this election, in order to get the Democratic party out of the clutches of the Clintons. I agree. Also, been reading a lot about Trump. He's acting the perfect clown, playing his audience AND the media perfectly to get what he wants. He's not dumb. Has an MBA from Wharton, played the banks like fools ( his own bankruptcies) beats them at their own games. He is a moderate ( what we New Englanders call an Edward Brooke Republican) has always supported & funded Planned Parenthood. His older sister is a very liberal Judge, woman's advocate. No, I'm not endorsing him, obviously, but think I could handle his antics better than I could the thought of Hill & Bill back in the WH.
Still working, hoping, for Bernie Sanders. But, just the thought of 4 to 8 years of the Clintons is intolerable.
that's a great article
Up to today, Trump's advocating for violence against POC at his rallies was making me think that maybe Hill would get my vote after all if Bernie lost (I'm embarrassed to admit that, but the intense brownshirt quality was getting to me). But I saw something in Clinton today when I watched the end of the Florida Democratic debate. It creeped me out deeply. Last time I felt anything like this--and it was nowhere near as bad, nowhere NEAR--was in 2004 when I watched Barack Obama give the speech at the Democratic convention. That time, it was just a cold, slightly off feeling. This time, it was like looking in the face of evil. I know how that sounds, and I rarely use the word evil in a political context, but...damn:
Watch her laughing at the crowd giving him the standing O. US Uncut calls this "laughing nervously." It's not what it looks like to me. Man, I'd like to be wrong, so if any of you can tell me I've just been looking at Twitter too long, or something, that would be great!
Here's the video:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm8NlGDiUpo]
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Still not voting Hillary.
Both of em will get people killed. At least Trump looks evil enough and will be blatant enough to get some opposition.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
all of 'em will get people killed
but at least Bernie will divide the coconuts evenly, here at home.
Well, I can't believe
any part of the Deep State actually wants to go after her, so the whole FBI thing has my jaw on the floor. Is there dissent behind the scenes? Are there people at Justice who hate this shit as much as I do?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Can't Stop, I've read that there are lots of people
behind the scenes who are flabbergasted by her lackadaisical approach to established procedures and protocols. On every single article in almost every publication you will come across comments from people in the government and the military or defense contractors or even private industry who say if they did even a fraction of what she did, they would be fired and even face the possibility of prison. This is a lot of people and they belong to every part of the political spectrum.
I have complete confidence in the FBI, and whatever investigative bodies there are, because this is their job, this is their function and you would think they are just as invested as anyone in having a government that is free from corruption and is safe on a national security level. I believe it's possible if nothing of great import was found that they may simply do nothing or say "nothing rises to the level of criminality". But IMO they have already found stuff "of great import" that will cause them to have to act. (I added this sentence to my original comment)
From what I've read no one at any time ever has suffered from violating the FOIA, which makes it pretty much a paper tiger. The worst thing that happens is they get sued in court by the person or party who has been stiffed, and then they might finally have to cough up stuff under subpoena.
One part of this whole brouhaha that is rarely discussed is the complete failure of the State Department itself to be compliant of FOIA in her reign. I always found it interesting that quite early on in the Kerry administration when they were trying to complete a request from the Benghazi committee, they found an email which revealed HRC's email and her off-channel communication system which they turned over to the committee which kind of got this whole ball rolling. The Benghazi committee and many private parties (like environmental groups interested in Keystone) had been making requests for years with no results. Anyone with half a brain has to believe this is why she set up the system in the first place. (I'm no fan of the Benghazi committee but I do believe in the concept of Congressional oversight as part of our checks and balances).
HRC saying that she is the most transparent SOS in history because she "has made her emails available" is the worst sort of sick and cynical joke. Yeah, she made them available after they were revealed by someone hacking her buddy and after being sued in Federal Court, and after someone after she was gone actually tried to comply with a Congressional request for info and after a media circus and public uproar kicked up.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Sorry for delay in response Caerus but wanted to read the links
first.
Bill Curry has been killing it - he's on my favorites list along with Thomas Frank lately.
I think one of his strongest points is the one about the herd mentality of Democrats being willing to deny their own personal favorite or viewpoint in favor of the one with strongest mass appeal - "you don't go into a store to buy what someone else wants." The Democrats have sold their tribe on the false god "electability" or mass appeal. Politics is the only arena in the world where we are willing to sublimate our personal desires like this.
In a normal election year with a full roster of candidates, Sanders would have been given 20 seconds in a debate to explain his "honeymoon in Russia"* a la Kucinich and the UFO and he would have been packed off after the first debate. I have to chuckle at how the Democrats "clear the field" strategy has so completely backfired on them. Bernie may not have gotten mainstream media time, but he dominated on the intertubes and its so fantastic to see the guy who looks like my Einstein refrigerator magnet filling stadiums and turning historic polling upsets.
Anyway, thanks so much for being the first comment in my first essay here. I look forward to lots of great discussions here.
*honeymoon in Russia for anyone who doesn't know, was a trip to a sister city in Russia when he was a Vermont burgomaster and he was newly married to Jane who went along.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
All the focus on the little crimes...
It's like trying to bust a bank robber for jaywalking while they continue to load their truck in plain view.
Hillary is a foul personage who has done far greater crimes that have been overlooked. She and her husband both.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Wow this one is a keeper DMW-
Is that home grown or did you get that from someone else?
Far as I know, Homebrew.
But possibly inspired a bit by the 80's when Clint Eastwood was the mayor of my town, and the imagery of Dirty Harry blasting away at a jaywalker, complete with "Hold it, Dirtbag!" was a joke around town...
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Al Capone and Tax Evasion
The Clintons are that good but like Al Capone, it will be hubris that catches up to them.
Progressive to the bone.
Hear, hear! Thanks for this diary, Phoebe. More
to add after I get Mister B's midday walk out of the way.
(Music City) Mollie
elinkarlsson@WordPress
"The obstacle is the path."--Zen Proverb
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Oh my God! I think I wrote this in public
This is my first diary using this platform and I was writing and cutting and editing and not realizing that "Save" basically meant "publish". I was looking at a preview and I saw some thumbs up and thought "huh? How can that be?" I was just about trying to schedule for publication and then I realize that it was already published. I feel like such a doofus. Is it because I hit "New Essay"? Would it have been the same if I went into my blog?
I am laughing. Live and learn.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
I never would have guessed it
I never would have guessed it was a first draft. I'm impressed.
Excellent job.
I tell everyone that the Save and Continue button is your friend.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
So Save and continue is like a draft mode?
Does it save your work but keep it unpublished?
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Phoebe...
you can still edit at any time, or unpublish, work on it and then republish. But if you unpublish it folks can still see the comments in the recent comment list and continue commenting. Of course you can leave it as is because it's damn good now.
Thanks Jtc.
I'll leave it. Too bad I don't have a video of my face when I realized it was published. It must have been pretty funny.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Not sure if you have seen the Black Men for Bernie video
check it out
For those of you that cant view the video what is shows is 2 Black man from Texas who have driven to Michigan to GOTV for Bernie. Here is a picture with their ride in the background-
Anyway the reason I post this video is to give you folks an idea of what I am like. If you came across me this is exactly what you would hear and how I would communicate with you.
I sent this video to a friend of mine that I haven't seen in years and I said who does this guy remind you of? He wrote back "That is you!".
Anyway the point I'm trying to make is that I have ZERO enthusiasm for Hillary because of her lying and smearing and there is NO way in hell that I can carry water for Hillary because people know me as an aggressive in your face straight shooter. If I tried to carry water for Hillary nobody I know would believe me because I wouldn't be acting like the guy in the video. I'd be arguing that she is less evil NOT that she is a great choice and it would fall flat to anyone who knows me.
I can't sell it if I don't believe in it. I can sell things I love though and I love Bernie and have sold him. I spent the entire second set of the Phish concert at the concession stands peppering the folks that worked at MSG about Bernie just like this guy in the video did and I got several commitments from folks just like he did.
Reminds me of an old cheer- Be Aggressive, B-E-AGG-RESS-IVE Be Aggressive!
GO Bernie Go!
UPDATED with video!!
wow, this is an amazing video, dakrie
thx for sharing it.
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.-Lucy Parsons
it is awesome, they got to meet Bernie also. I will post
A picture later.
i shared these guys on Facebook
and updated it when I saw they did, indeed, meet Bernie Sanders.
these guys are really cute... and have so much energy and authenticity... i was really happy Sanders connected with them.
“There are moments which are not calculable, and cannot be assessed in words; they live on in the solution of memory… ”
― Lawrence Durrell, "Justine"
what a wonderful video; what a great approach
This whole video really touched me. What the Bernie guy said is true, whether you are black, white or whatever. Look at what people do not what they say they are going to do. I am so, so impressed that this guy came from Texas and is working the for the Cause of Justice of the 99% which Bernie is heading in the election.
Thanks, Dakrie... what a guy....
Sea Turtle
Thanks dakrle for sharing the video and commenting
That is absolutely the very best form of politics. It is very uplifting to see the passion and commitment that those guys have - who knows how many hearts and minds they reached? They threw a stone in the pond and made ripples. They are the change. We are the change. Gandhi said that - it will never not be true.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
If you wish to donate so they can continue
please go here: They are awesome
Don't believe everything you think.
Many people don't understand the issue
Even after the Sony Pictures hack where stars' email was made public, many people not tech savvy don't understand the real threat. That is all that is saving HRC (for now).
Nor, do many understand the security measures
taken by couriers (running from the Pentagon to military installations, government offices, and think tanks) when classified material is transported. Or, the measures taken with equipment after classified material has been reproduced. Or, the process and security involved in destroying said documents.
If this information was readily known and/or understood, there's no way, IMHO, that FSC would have been able to entertain running--at least not in this election cycle, when the issue has yet to have been dispatched.
Frankly, I think that any of the Republican candidates, especially Trump or Cruz, will be able to make mincemeat of her.
For sure, it ain't gonna be pretty! (if she's the nominee)
(Music City) Mollie
elinkarlsson@WordPress
"The obstacle is the path."--Zen Proverb
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Speaking of tech savy Steve15
I see that her people are touting that the security logs turned over by the tech guy "show no evidence of hacking". I have seen some comments from various people that the most sophisticated hackers, like those from foreign governments, well know how to hack without leaving footprints behind in a security log. Is that true, do you think?
Also, not often addressed is that there are a couple of outside companies that had access to the server, for maintenance and storage purposes and that some of her stuff was backed up in the cloud. Isn't it possible that the cloud was breached and not the server itself? I have no idea about this stuff, but it's something I would ask.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
This whole thing is very disturbing
I have been very angry that she had a private server and before she was to turn over the FOI request, she deleted approximately half of the emails on it, saying that they were private and personal correspondence. That is a big red flag for me. Having worked in local government myself for over 30 years, I am very much aware of the issue of government in the sunshine. It appears that Clinton was trying to hide something by deleting all those emails. With that in mind, here are some of my own observations.
(1) The mixing of public and private business should never be done, especially by the officials in whom we have placed the highest trust.
(2) I do not believe that it is up the Clinton or her employees to determine what is relevant and what is not. IMO, everything on that server is relevant until the FBI and Justice Department determine that it is not.
(3) I personally believe that there is more than just the problem with transmitting classified information. I suspect there is also a problem with the personal stuff, perhaps the Clinton Foundation? Note: Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin was also employed by the Clinton Foundation at the same time she was working for the State Department.
(4) Even at it best, the emails and the private server show two disturbing things about Clinton that demonstrate that she consistently fails to use good judgment and is unfit to be President. First, to use a private and unsecured server to do State Department business and second, Clinton's mixing of public and private business and her subsequent decision to delete about half of the emails before turning the rest over. It appears she is hiding something.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
Word.
I believe that from the get go, it was all about the FOIA. I believe she made a lawyerly decision and never looked back. She believes she will never be indicted because she has already bought very good lawyers.
Here's my take
Personally, I do not believe she will be indicted, but even if one or more of her aides (Sullivan or Abedin, perhaps) are, it is still very damning for someone who aspires to be President of the United States.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
The Clinton Foundation teakettle is about to start whistling
too, IMO. That's a whole other huge issue. I know that the State Department is looking at the intersection of projects requiring department sign-off on and Foundation donors. I think I've read that if any publicly held companies start getting subpoenas about their activities being investigated, they have to disclose it to the SEC and their shareholders. Not my area of expertise. I imagine reporters are looking for stuff like that. I think David Sirota at International Business Times is the reporter most plugged into this topic.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Dare we call it influence peddling?
It seems blatantly obvious to me.
Solidarity
It's Not Just Hillary
Has anyone here ever taken a peek at the CIA World Factbook site? It's filled with the sort of information corporatists would love to know as they push the US Government to "obtain" favorable trade conditions for them via the US Military on the taxpayer's dime.
I looked up one of the nations where Ebola was a huge problem a couple of years back (Ghana, iirc), and found that the people were deeply impoverished while only 25% of the national electrical production was being used. Add in the next military dictatorship friendly to US corporate interests, and you have the next Bangladesh just waiting for formerly US jobs to arrive and enrich the corporate owners.
I have no reason to doubt that the hidden emails involved corporatist desires in various nations of the world, and Hillary's promises to help them realize their dreams.
CIA World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
Well, Phoebe ...
In answer to your question, I'll have to go with: only time will tell what will happen with Hillary and her "damned e-mails". But I have to say, it really pisses me off that her sense of entitlement and her lack of good judgment have got us to this point. My impression is that she's STILL not sorry she did such a reckless thing ... just oh so sorry she got caught! What can you say about a person like that?
Yes ... national security issue, big time. Am I correct that she only got caught with the private server when a Romanian hacker hacked into Sidney Blumenthal's e-mail, and then followed the e-mail trail to her? Good lord! I can only shake my head and be fervently grateful that Bernie is fighting tooth and nail for the nomination. I agree with you, Phoebe ... this is the sort of thing that should disqualify a person from the highest office in the land.
"Long term: first the rich get mean, then the poor get mean, and the rest is history." My brother Rob.
My understanding Pat K is that a couple of things happened
Blumenthal got hacked and Gawker published that email which revealed the HRC email address (which she had to change after the hack) and then Gawker (I think) among others filed a FOIA request about that email address. Also, the State Department (sans Clinton's people) actually coughed up one or more emails to the Benghazi committee with her email on it, tipping them off that they had been stiffed on their requests for years. And, some FOIA requests (like those pitbulls at Judicial Watch) were bubbling up to the top of the court system at the same time, so it was sort of a perfect storm of convergence. Almost seems karmic.
The timeline and story that Hillary has put out is also completely false. Hillary and her lawyers were negotiating with State about the turnover of her emails in the summer. Someone in the pipeline, either her people or State, came up with the cover story in the fall, after these negotiations were already going on, of "Oh, look! We need to complete our archives. Let's ask ALL the SOS's to turn over any lingering emails they might have outside the government system so that Hillary doesn't stick out like a sore thumb as the only one we are asking."
Hillary has promulgated this narrative, which is far better than "After the State Department mistakenly actually complied with a Benghazi request, and now they are all over my ass, I reluctantly and dragged kicking and screaming, have consented to turn over a few missives from my very own private server. Because transparency. And subpoenas. And depositions. And court cases. Did I mention how transparent I am?"
She is transparent, just not in the sense she is using.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Thanks a million for this response, Phoebe.
Sorting out the e-mail business has been like peeling an onion for me. I take the first layer off and think, "Hmmmmm. Doesn't seem too terrible." Then I get to the next layer and think, "Uh ... this is a bit worse than I thought." About 2 layers ago I reached the "WTF???" layer. Your reply actually added a layer that I'd manage to miss along the way.
Ordinarily, peeling an onion would leave me in tears. This particular onion just leaves me angry and disgusted.
"Long term: first the rich get mean, then the poor get mean, and the rest is history." My brother Rob.
More electable?
People keep saying: "Trump will savage Bernie for being a socialist, but all the attacks on Clinton have already been made." Uh, what about attacking her for being fucking indicted?" Forget Republicans; what do you think *independents*, who outnumber both Republicans and Democrats, will do when confronted with an indicted official vs a crazy fascist?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
At that points, appeals to reason...
Are likely to be akin to demanding a customer hurry up their order at Cafe "Stab-or-Shoot".
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
Lots of baggage
and Trump will not be attacking on just one front against her. He will lob two or three attacks and throw her off. She does not think very well on her feet. She has too much baggage and she has to triangulate around it all. Bernie, on the other hand, is the best at staying on message, a message that he believes in. I think Trump will have a much harder time against Bernie. His authenticity shines and that is something that no focus group or poll can create because it comes from within.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
You're so right there
She does NOT think well on her feet, and that has shocked me. I'm obviously not an HRC supporter, but to see someone that well trained in politics and the smear being this dumb about it? That's when I almost start thinking her intent is to lose, how else to explain such stupidity?
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
It comes of
having been too well-protected and privileged for too long.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Trump would eat her alive, happily
Hanging catchphrases that stick on her, like "low energy" and "little Marco," and loudly reciting all her past scandals, over and over. She couldn't handle him at all, and it would drive Bill to say something else inappropriate.
What, just because
she might get indicted?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Well said, Phoebe
I had exactly the same reaction that you described. My first thought was "Oh, no!". My second was: "Wait a minute, how COULD they be classified when she sent them if they were sent outside the classified security system? No one had a chance to classify them!" One source claims the she deleted much more than she released. Existing protocols REQUIRE ALL US officials to use an existing security system for ALL official correspondence. That's because if you don't you might be hacked by a nut case in Bulgaria. And then to tell the American people that she did it because the existing security system is "inconvenient"! After getting through the anxiety of wondering if you are the only one that feels this way, the very next assumption must be that the fix is in. Then you can calmly watch to see how far up it goes..and how wide. The MSM always talks about the "Democratic establishment" and the Republican establishment" as if there are two separate ones. There may still be two parties, but there is only one establishment. And it wants its candidate to win regardless of party.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” Voltaire
TheHill.com's A.B. Stoddard slams Clinton's lies re: email
From http://thehill.com/opinion/ab-stoddard/272452-stoddard-clintons-lies-are...
Since her private email server was revealed a year ago, Clinton’s false claims — of her unprecedented transparency, of the server arrangement being “fully above board” and of the State Department having 90 to 95 percent of her emails — have earned 19 Pinnochios from The Washington Post’s fact checker, which notes the ex-first lady uses “highly technical language to obscure the salient fact that her private email setup was highly unusual and flouted existing regulations.”
It started with a whopper, that she “did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.” Now the count stands at 2,079 emails containing classified information, which experts claim could only be deliberately removed by retyping or taking screen shots of material on the separate classified system.
Once again on Monday, Clinton, when questioned by Bret Baier in a Fox News Channel town hall, said she didn’t send or receive anything marked as classified. Of course, material is classified in its nature and substance, not by its marking, so it’s still classified when illegally removed from a secure system to be placed in an unsecured system, no matter how hard the presidential candidate is trying to confuse people.
On Sunday, when The Washington Post revealed Clinton had written 104 such emails herself, she spoke of the thrill of her longtime employee being granted immunity in the FBI investigation into her emails. Until then, Bryan Pagliano, who set up a private server for her he likely knew would subvert Freedom of Information Act laws, had pleaded his Fifth Amendment rights.
A.B. Stoddard is an associate editor of The Hill.
Fair Use Standards
It looks like you quoted the entire article from The Hill. To do so requires that the OP provide permission to do so.
I recommend that you link to the article, and include the best few quotes to pique interest. My purpose is to keep this site out of legal problems!
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
It's fair use, and obviously you didn't even look at the article
This is an excerpt from the article, not the entire article. This excerpt, posted here in the context of discussion & debate, meets fair use standards. In addition, your assertion that quoting the whole article means it cannot be fair use is absolutely false and entirely inconsistent with the law of fair use.
No, he's right...
cut it down to 3 or 4 paragraphs and leave the link to it. If you don't do it I will. It's my ass on the line.
Update: I did it for you, 3 or 4 paragraphs is fair use on this site.
Learn about the law
I suggest you learn more about the law of fair use. There is no "3 or 4 paragraphs" rule.
Fed Judge: Posting Entire Editorial In Online Comment = Fair Use
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
This is a copyright infringement action brought by Plaintiff Righthaven LLC (“Righthaven”) against Defendant Wayne Hoehn (“Hoehn”), who is and was at all relevant times a registered user and content contributor to the website (the “Website”). (Pl.’s Resp. To Mot. For Summ. J. [“Resp.”] (Doc. #13).) Hoehn has never been employed by the Website’s owner and operator. (Id.) On or about November 29, 2010, Hoehn displayed an unauthorized reproduction of a copyrighted literary work entitled “Public Employee Pensions. We Can’t Afford Them” (the “Work”) as part of the content contributed by him to the Website. (Id.) In his reproduction, Hoehn attributed the source of the Work to the Las Vegas Review Journal (“LVRJ”). (Compl. (Doc. #1).) Hoehn avers that he did not post the Work for profit and that there was no mechanism for him to profit by posting the Work on the website. ...
Fair use is a defense to use of a copyrighted work which otherwise would be copyright infringement if the work is used “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching . . ., scholarship, or research.” 17 U.S.C. § 107.
Factors to be considered when determining fair use include-
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
1) The Purpose and Character of the Use
The first factor of fair use is the purpose and character of the use. 17 U.S.C. § 107. Noncommercial, nonprofit use is presumptively fair. Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 449 (1984). ... It is undisputed that Hoehn did not and could not profit from posting the Work. Under Sony, noncommercial/nonprofit use is presumptively fair. Additionally, this factor focuses on the purpose or character of the new work. Here, Hoehn posted the Work as part of an online discussion. Hoehn avers he posted the Work to foster discussion in a specific interactive website forum regarding the recent budget shortfalls facing state governments. This purpose is consistent with comment, for which 17 U.S.C. § 107 provides fair use protection. There is no genuine issue of material fact that Hoehn’s noncommercial use of the Work for comment favors a finding that the use was fair.
2) The Nature of the Copyrighted Work
The second factor is the nature of the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 107. Generally, “creative works are closer to the core of intended copyright protection than informational and functional works.” Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1402 (9th Cir. 1997) (quotation omitted). “The scope of fair use is greater when informational as opposed to creative works are involved.” Hustler Magazine Inc. v. Moral Majority Inc., 796 F.2d 1148, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 1986). ... The Work is an editorial originally published in the LVRJ [Las Vegas Review-Journal]. The Work is a combination of an informational piece with some creative elements. Roughly eight of the nineteen paragraphs of the Work provide purely factual data, about five are purely creative opinions of the author, and the rest are a mix of factual and creative elements. While the Work does have some creative or editorial elements, these elements are not enough to consider the Work a purely “creative work” in the realm of fictional stories, song lyrics, or Barbie dolls. Accordingly, the Work is not within “the core of intended copyright protection.” Dr. Seuss, 109 F.3d at 1402. Rather, because the Work contains a significant informational element, the scope of fair use is greater than it would be for a creative work, but likely less than it would for a purely informational work. However, this factor is not terribly relevant in the overall fair use balancing, and the lesser creative element of the Work lessens the impact further. Accordingly, this factor must be balanced with the other fair use factors to determine if Hoehn’s use of the Work was fair.
3) The Amount Used
The third factor of fair use is the amount of the use of the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 107. ... It is undisputed that Hoehn posted the entire work in his comment on the Website. ... wholesale copying does not preclude a finding of fair use. The three other factors need to be balanced to determine if fair use is appropriate.
4) The Effect Upon the Potential Market for the Work
The final factor to be weighed is the effect on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. 17 U.S.C. § 107. ... It is undisputed that Hoehn’s use of the Work is noncommercial. Challenges to noncommercial use require a showing that the particular use is harmful or negatively impacts the potential market for the copyrighted work. ... Merely arguing that because Hoehn replicated the entirety of the Work the market for the Work was diminished is not sufficient to show harm. Therefore, Righthaven has not presented evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact that the fourth factor favors a finding of fair use.
There is no genuine issue of material fact that the above factors favor a finding of fair use. Of the four factors, only the fact that Hoehn replicated the entire Work weighs against a finding of fair use. Hoehn used the Work for a noncommercial and nonprofit use that was different from the original use. The copyrighted Work was an informational work with only some creative aspects, and the Work was used for an informational purpose. Righthaven did not present any evidence that the market for the Work was harmed by Hoehn’s noncommercial use for the 40 days it appeared on the Website. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Hoehn’s use of the Work was fair and summary judgment is appropriate.
http://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2011-06-20-Order%20Grant...
Totally agree on disqualification
I was livid at how the Bush White House used private e-mail to hide mega-scandals. Remember those? In the last administration we had them every month.
Benghazi was a tragedy and not a scandal. Now, basically we have no Obama scandals EXCEPT Hillary's e-mail.
My theory is that Clinton and the media conflate Benghazi and the e-mails, and so many Democrats who are tired of the Benghazi BS give her a pass on the whole thing.
But when I heard about the e-mails, I too was flabbergasted, and just because Karl Rove does it doesn't make it ok. In fact, it makes it wrong. When Scott Walker and Karl Rove do it it's wrong, and when Clinton does it it's wrong.
She made this bed herself. Even if nobody is prosecuted, people know that Clinton thinks she is above the rules.
DISQUALIFIED!!!
GradySeasons
"The nightlife ain't no good life, but it's my life."
Kos, Clinton, classified emails, & Snowden
In the Miami debate:
Hillary Clinton, asked about whether she would drop out if she were indicted for the existence of potentially classified information on her private email server, dismissed the possibility on its face. “That is not gonna happen - I am not even answering that question.”
(link for text) http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/mar/09/democratic-debate-cl...
(link for video) http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton-ind...
And two days ago, Kos commented re: what is and is not allowed after March 15th:
There actually is a way, such as suggesting ways in which Clinton can message a response to those attacks, or by helping debunk them. You can even discuss new revelations and consider how it fits in the context of the campaign. I mean, the email attacks are legitimately, objectively bunk. We can discuss them while treating them that way.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1498008/60176917#comment_60176917
So Clinton is saying "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" and Kos is about to enforce a total ban on anyone who suggests that the FBI investigation could possibly show that Clinton acted illegally.
Contrast this with Clinton's attitude toward Edward Snowden:
The exchange began with host Anderson Cooper asking Lincoln Chafee, a former governor of Rhode Island, “Governor Chafee: Edward Snowden, is he a traitor or a hero?” Chafee replied that he would bring Snowden home without forcing him to serve any jail time. “The American government was acting illegally,” he continued. “That’s what the federal courts have said; what Snowden did showed that the American government was acting illegally for the Fourth Amendment. So I would bring him home.”
Chafee was stating a truth. In May of this year, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan, ruled that the N.S.A., in routinely collecting the phone records of millions of Americans—an intelligence program that Snowden exposed in 2013—broke the law of the land. The Patriot Act did not authorize the government to gather calling records in bulk, the judges said. “Such expansive development of government repositories of formerly private records would be an unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans,” the decision read....
After Chafee spoke, Cooper turned to Hillary Clinton and asked, “Secretary Clinton, hero or traitor?” Clinton, who earlier in the debate had described herself as “a progressive who likes to get things done,” replied, “He broke the laws of the United States. He could have been a whistle-blower. He could have gotten all of the protections of being a whistle-blower. He could have raised all the issues that he has raised. And I think there would have been a positive response to that.”
“Should he do jail time?” Cooper asked, to which Clinton replied, “In addition—in addition, he stole very important information that has unfortunately fallen into a lot of the wrong hands. So I don’t think he should be brought home without facing the music.”...
“I think Snowden played a very important role in educating the American people to the degree in which our civil liberties and our constitutional rights are being undermined,” Bernie Sanders pointed out, immediately after Clinton spoke. “He did—he did break the law, and I think there should be a penalty to that. But I think what he did in educating us should be taken into consideration.”
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/hillary-clinton-is-wrong-abou...
Obama HATES Whistleblowers
Obama doesn't believe in providing "all of the protections of being a whistle-blower." Ask John Kiriakou how well those surrounding steel bars protect him for blowing the whistle. Ask Thomas Drake, William Binney, J. Kirk Wiebe and Edward Loomis ( http://www.thenation.com/article/obamas-crackdown-whistleblowers/ ).
Ask Eric McDavid ( http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/lists/the-new-political-prisoners-l... ) Tim DeChristopher ( http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/lists/the-new-political-prisoners-l... ) Barrett Brown ( http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/lists/the-new-political-prisoners-l... ) Andrew Auernheimer ( http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/lists/the-new-political-prisoners-l... ) Jeremy Hammond ( http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/lists/the-new-political-prisoners-l... ) Chelsea Bradley Manning ( http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/lists/the-new-political-prisoners-l... 19691231 ). Ask Julian Assange, who isn't even a citizen of the United States and is being persecuted ( https://ccrjustice.org/home/blog/2016/02/05/un-victory-assange-case ) by the US for treason for revealing embarrassing secret surveillance of foreign leaders.
But if you are a high-ranking official in the government named Petraeus, Panetta, or Vickers, you don't get prosecuted for violating the law. ( https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/dec/2/obama-administration-pro... ) This is the ONLY reason Hillary isn't already in the dock, for if they give her up, others will follow.
At the very least, Obama is a captive of the corporatist coup currently running (and ruining) the nation. His actions ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/obama-whistleblower-prosecution... ) give him away. (more here: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/obamas-whistleblowers-stuxne... ) At worst, he's in the conspiracy up to his jug ears.
So my advice to Snowden is to forget about returning to the USA until a democratic form of governance again rules the land.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
I think that there might be a way bigger scandal in this mess
I think that when they (the Republicans) get to looking into the finances of the Clinton Family Slush Fund, which I read was hosted on the same server as the one Hillary did official business on, and they start looking at some of those foreign 'donations' that they accepted while she was Secretary of State. And the five years of financial restatements that they filed because they got caught fudging the income reports. I think that's all tied up. And maybe a look at the money donated towards humanitarian relief for Haiti and ask why nothing but hotels and crap have been built. The people are still in dire need.
***
Clinton Foundation Amends 4 Years Taxes, Admits Speech Fees Weren't Donations
Government grants and contributions. Starting in 2010, the Foundation reported on three consecutive IRS tax returns that it received no donations from foreign government sources. It wasn’t as if they didn’t know how to report them. In prior years, the Foundation reported tens of millions of dollars in such donations. But things changed. Upon becoming Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton promised that the Foundation would stop accepting donations from foreign governments. It turns out there were exceptions, and that the Foundation’s tax filings with the IRS were less than transparent.
Revenue from speeches. Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton all gave speeches in 2010, 2011, and 2012. The money was reported as charitable contributions, but actually, the speech fees were payments for services. That is worth saying again: the speech fees were purely fees-for-services and not donations. What’s more, the Foundation did not send any donor acknowledgement letters to these speech hosts. In fact, it is worth asking whether Ms. Clinton will amend her own taxes too.
Changes to Schedule B. The Foundation admits that there were errors in the amounts of donations and that there were some omissions. Some of these changes led to the listing of additional donors. In several cases, the speech fees were moved from contributions to other income. As a result, there was a decrease to the two percent threshold for reporting on this schedule.
Listing of related entities. The last category of major amendments to the returns is the listing of related entities. As the Clinton Foundation has set up and invested in entities that help it do work on the ground. The amended returns now disclose and reflect these relationships.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/11/17/clinton-foundation-ame...
***
Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State Dept.
The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.
Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.
The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-million...
***
The Clintons are an 'Anything for a Buck' kind of family. Regardless of whether or not the CFSF and her emails from her State Dept. days are on the same server or not, I still think that there's enough for the Republican's to beat her presidential aspirations into a coma, they've just got to find the right stuff. And the right people. Not more Howdy Gowdy type knuckleheads.
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
You're right, Amanda Mathews, there is another scandal
potentially concerning the Clinton Foundation. That one has so many threads and potential players involving so many companies and foreign governments that it is truly mind-boggling. That could literally take years to unravel.
One thing that I noticed, that I have never seen commented on is this:
In the past, the foundation model was used by extremely wealthy families to disperse their already accumulated wealth in ways that benefited the public and society - think Rockefeller, Carnegie Mellon, the Ford Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc. etc. The Clintons upended this model - they started their foundation and then became wealthy. That may be the new format for globetrotting, influential former politicos trading on their own names and access to the corridors of power.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
It will make for a great ethic's case scenario...
I'm taking Public Administration Ethics this semester in pursuit of my MPPA degree. What occurred with the e-mail server may or may not be technically "legal". The FBI investigation will go a long way towards orienting things towards an outcome in that regard. In any event, what happened certainly was not "ethical", and this will probably make the case studies in Public Administration Ethics for years to come. The scene from the movie Gangs of New York immediately comes to mind. Where "Boss Tweed" says “the appearance of law must be upheld, especially while it's being broken”.
She should be indicted.
Of course, whether that will actually happen is another story.
She is not fit to be president.
~ Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. ~
What I don't understand Joy of Fishes
is why the Democrats remain so invested in her regardless of this sh*t storm that is not going away. I don't know how Clinton herself stands it. If I were her, it would seem so much more attractive to rest on my laurels and to continue globetrotting with or without the hubster and hobnob with my buddies at Davos or wherever and continue my career as a behind the scenes power broker. IMO she will never carry a GE with all this baggage, too many people find her untrustworthy. When I start to have sympathy for her situation, I always come around to the fact that she is suffering as a result of her own actions. No one made her set up a private server and ignore FOIAs and Congressional oversight and be lackadaisical about what she was sending and receiving throughout her off the books system. What she did was breathtaking when you really think about it. All she had to do was color within the lines and she would be (have been) a truly historical and influential and powerful figure. It's all about a failure(s) of judgement.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
So true Phoebe
Her entire empire is founded on exploitation of power and an over abundance of hubris. They really believe that they can get away with anything and that leads to many cases of really bad judgement. Just think, the State Department was willing (and set up) to administer her email system. She wouldn't have had to worry about security, backup, access or any of the many things an email administrator has to deal with; instead, she wanted full control of her system so she took these responsibilities unnecessarily onto herself. She deserves everything she gets.
Not meaning to be too vulgar but the difference between Clinton and Trump are they both believe themselves entitled but:
- Trump will tell you how bad he's going to screw you.
- Hillary will explain that we were just playing post office and it slipped.
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties.. This...is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.--John Adams
Because the Clintons
are running a protection racket. Anyone who goes against them is on their enemies list and they will do anything to ruin that person. That is how Hill got all those endorsements.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
scary post at Reddit about Clinton campaign trying to silence
Shaun King.
Shaun King on the Clinton's Attempts to "Stop Him"
The way to stop negative commentary is to stop doing things that invite negative commentary. The alternate approach is to "stop" negative bloggers.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
Shit is going to get real pretty soon
This article explains how between the Guccifer hack and the FOIA request we now have a smoking gun that shows that Clinton probably deleted an email from Blumenthal. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-09/missing-clinton-e-mail-claims-s...
It seems that only three of the four emails he hacked from Blumenthal to Clinton were turned over to the feds. Additionally, Guccifer took a screenshot of Blumenthal's inbox and from that all the emails displayed there show up in the State Department email dump except:
That email was either deleted, or it was so classified that the State Department didn't even bother to black it out and just didn't disclose it...hardly likely.
We have her IT guy given immunity and Guccifer just got extradited to the US. Looks like he's coming to testify that yes, he hacked Blumenthals email and yes, that was the screenshot.
Regardless of everything.
Clinton makes bad decisions.
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties.. This...is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.--John Adams
If the Feds have recovered the deleted emails
and I think I have read that they have (although you never know how reliable all these stories and sources are) you would think it would be a pretty simple case to make "Oh, look! Here are all these emails that are definitely government related that you didn't turn over and deleted instead".
Many people have pointed out that the server itself is the tell. You only have your own server when you want the ability to delete off the server. IT guys in the corporate world know that deleting off the server is a big f-ing deal and usually involves some kind of subterfuge or intrigue involving destruction of evidence and/or obstruction and they won't do it because when the subpoenas come they go to the IT dept and ask for server logs. A person could very well have deleted something from their personal inbox, but it will remain on the server.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "