In the Marines if one document classified as secret is found in any server other that a secured authorized server the soldier is immediately dismissed from the military forfeiting any rights or privileges or future compensation. Appears we have two standards: 1) make up the rules as you go along without consequence - federal government, and 2) follow the rules or get dismissed - the military.
Birds of a feather flock together. As birds go in old dino's (dazzling,or dazzled, take your pick) mind, Clueless Kerry and that entitled dingbat hag rank as equals among ground birds such as chickens and turkeys, who just can't fly right, let's say, compared to far brighter American bald eagles.
If only Hillary were a dingbat she wouldn't be dangerous. People, including me, refer to people as "stupid" who we disagree with, but it's an example of language evolving in a bad way. Hillary is anything but stupid or unintelligent. She's smart, conniving, ambitious, vicious and well-connected. That makes her evil.
Bernie has a lot of bad policy positions, and somewhere around 10% to 15% good ones. But I don't think he'd be nearly as successful at implementing his policies as Hillary would.
Good +1 points. Instead of being email stupid, evil and lazy would forego security requirements imposed to save lives just to save her highness some PC time. All in all, Benghazi Killary is a dangerous sociopath, who already has blood on her hands. I'm also thinking of how she protected her future political career plus eight First Lady years by harassing women her hubby had raped or had affairs with.
The reasons that she's given publicly for wanting her own mail server vs using Dept of State email are completely baffling to me, and my job for the last 30 years deals directly with that sort of stuff. In other words, she spouted a line of bullshit that was blatantly non-sensical instead of giving the real reason.
That evil hag knows plenty of enablers has her back as she blathers hr BS away. And the same goes for the army of zombie Dimofwit voters she has in the bag many bleating her own question, "Don't you want a first female president?" Should she become president, I imagine sexist cards will be pulled against her policy critics.
Although I think Hillary will be indicted, it is a major long shot. The FBI can only refer this to DOJ. Then, a Grand Jury, Then an indictment, all and the will of the Administration. Good luck. but, if this happens, mass resignation, and furor will cloud the FBI for years. And ruin all semblance of justice from the DOJ for decades.
Hillary is a lying, manipulative, and evil woman. But she has powerful friends who protect her. Hopefully she will make a mistake they cant afford to protect her from.
The longer she can keep getting away with things, the more she will try to do. We only need a small percentage of the people to wake up and begin demanding accountability to sway her prosecution. My fear is that we will run out of time and that people will be more interested in handouts.
The sobering reality is that the entire government is corrupt, including all of the unelected "civil servants." Even if we could immediately throw out all of the elected officials, the stench would only be mildly relieved. Nothing short of a complete cleansing of all those who receive taxpayer compensation for labor would begin to correct the problem. Banning labor unions from government would also be necessary. Unfortunately I'm skeptical that anything short of a revolution that turns out the entire government force will be effective. I would hope that such an overthrow of government could happen as a result of non-violent civil disobedience, but with the power that government is likely to apply to resist such an effort, violent resistance may be inevitable.
I'd love to get rid of the unions and their influence in government as well. We'd need another Reagan, however (remember the Air Traffic Controller strike?)
That would be nice, but I think that's reserved for military personnel - not civilians. All we can do now is see how much political pressure gets put on the Justice Department to recommend a Grand Jury Indictment, then see if the Grand Jury gets bought off before recommending prosecution.
The military would eat her alive. She treats them like garbage. You can be sure that if she was put in front of a military tribunal they would throw the book at her, lock her in Leavensworth, and throw away the key.
Now there's a reason to support the military in upholding their oath of office. maybe that's what they are waiting for. Hillary in front a martial law tribunal instead of a congressional impeachment trial with the rest of congtress awaiting their turn.
One wonders if it will all go that way anyway. A Pinochet style reset button for the United States.
Ah, memories, back in the mid-90's I had a running five day editorial published in the Elko Daily Free Press. It was a lengthy muse on jurisdictions and how the first Clinton should have been in Leavenworth. God, that was twenty years ago.
There is no way in hell we can afford another Clinton, and one that cackles while getting away with it all. Last night was sickening.
The issue of course is that this places the Obama Administration in a very difficult position. They either have to cover for one of their own and take the political heat which comes from it, or they have to throw her to the wolves with the very real possibility that they lose the Presidential election.
I think Obama hates Hillary. He would have no trouble throwing her under the bus. My thinking was that Obama wanted Biden to run and he would get Hillary out of the way. Biden would serve one term then Elizabeth Warren would run. When Joe decided not to run he was faced with the Clinton wing taking over the party again or giving the Republicans the 2016 election. i still don't think he made up his mind.
Ed Klein has documented how there is no love lost between the Obamas and the Clintons, but the power of both decreases with a Republican in the White House. Both are vying for control of the Democratic Party. But the Clinton Foundation isn't going to be worth much as political war chest if Hillary isn't the nominee this year. She's not getting any younger and her looks are going downhill as fast as the scandals keep piling up. Okay - maybe not as fast as the scandals. ;)
Biden just dithered about and then his son died. By the time Biden got back to thinking about politics, the decision was made. Warren didn't want to go toe-to-toe with Clinton, preferring to be able to play the woman card like Hillary has. (Of course she's going to get panned bigtime for playing the phony Native American card.) I'll bet that O'Malley was paid by the Clintons to get in the race and then bow out exactly as he's done in order to get his name recognition up for a run in eight years or so.
I can't imagine any Democrats expected Sanders to make a serious run for the nomination. If Hillary is indicted I doubt the party elders would try to win a national campaign with Bernie. Lots going on but it means little cause they all suck.
Trump is more of a wild card. His positions are harder to pin down coming from the private sector. I often resist challenging a customer when I think it will do no good and could cause me to lose business. Bernie is a known commodity. I think he was there to make it look like Hillary had to fight for the nomination and help her hone her debate skills. The polls after New Hampshire will be interesting. Bernie seems like he will fade quickly.
This is interesting. "I often resist challenging a customer when I think it will do no good and could cause me to lose business." Are you saying Trump is more likely to lie than Sanders? That sounds right to me. "I think he was there to make it look like Hillary had to fight " Do you think some Democrats almost arranged for Sanders' partial success for this reason?
Donald had to get along with everyone to get things done so he had to keep his true conviction to himself. Sanders success in my opinion is more a factor of Hillarys weakness. The FBI investigation and all of Bills problems have some Democrats nervous.
Hillary and Bernie are absolute disasters in my opinion. Donald is far from perfect but he may stop the bleeding and get the economy going again. W may have been bad but O has been worse. The amount of work that needs done to return the US to freedom and liberty will take multiple Presidential terms.
I hope you're wrong about Hillary Clinton. I do not think Trump or Sanders can win the general election or take steps to fix the problems.
I don't see any president fixing it because part of the problem is excessive power of the presidency. It's hard for someone to have the extraordinary commitment and ability to win but then not use the powers the last president took. Most of the candidates except Ron Paul in '08 don't even promise to do that. Maybe Rand Paul did too. Rand Paul sees the need to limit gov't in general. I don't remember if he said he would limit the presidency.
Bernie can't possibly win a general election. Trumps challenge is to get the nomination. If he does I think he'll win the election easily. Republicans will close ranks and support the nominee to get back the White House. Blue dog and centrist Democrats will vote in large enough numbers to give Trump the win. Democrats are not excited about Hillary or Bernie and I expect a low voter turn out on their side. Right now Biden is a wild card.
The number of politicians that are crooked is so vast that the courts would be filled for years prosecuting them, which would probably be a good thing since until all were prosecuted we wouldn't have a non-working government
I would argue that if it were a working government, it wouldn't be trying to:
A) restrict the freedom and liberty of its citizens B) ignore division of powers through the creation of laws by either the executive or judicial branches C) tax and regulate the citizens to death D) authorize spending with money we don't have
Of course, that's just little-old, naive, ideological me... ;)
If only the possibility of convictions were real! If Dems retain power then the Att'y General won't prosecute. If the Reps gain the presidency they might try to prosecute, but then one of these things will happen:
1) The Dems will find or invent some Republicans who did something as bad or worse
2) The Reps will realize that if they prosecute then the next time Dems are in power they'll start prosecuting Republicans.
Neither side will be inclined to break the unwritten rule that they don't enforce the rules on each other. They may make a tremendous amount of noise and have investigations and committee hearings, but in the end they'll pretend there was no intent (as if that matters) or that the laws that were broken aren't important enough to worry about.
Years ago CT sent its governor, John Rowland, to federal prison. He was corrupt to the core and had broken lots of laws and was charged with numerous counts of very serious crimes. In the end he was convicted of the least important charge, akin to parking on the street during a snow ban, and the rest were dropped. He took a federal vacation for a little over a year.
I will shout for prosecutions and convictions and hope that not only do they take place, but they conclude in February of 2017 when a new President is in office.
TERM LIMITS TERM LIMITS TERM LIMITS I think this quote is accurate--Thoreau says to Emerson "Simplify Simplify Simplify". Emerson says "ONE Simplify would have been enough" TERM LIMITS Why can't this get grass roots traction? They will never do it to themselves. I know-Kerry is not elected-but this culture is mind numbing. Hillary is accused of taking over $600K from Goldman Sachs. OK, free market. I think Ted Crews' wife works at Goldman. We need out of the beltway, fiscally responsible, business experienced men and women-not looking for a government job to serve-and go home. Atlas just puked on Kerry's Gucci's.
Good luck with that....I know 3 retired FBI agents and they tell me the current director is howling for blood....but they also told me that when all is said and done....there are 2 sets of laws in this country. The director may well "fall on his sword" [IE Resign] over this to make a stink......but actual prosecution for anything serious enough to cause jail time...probably not happening. All that will happen is an embarrassing situation but for the Clinton's.....that is not a problem, they have no shame.
Just the one I wanted to get in hot water Perfect!!! i was hoping beyond hope he wouldn't get pulled out of the standby list to replace Hillary. Thanks for the good news.
The articles talk about their having classified material on their private e-mails. I am less concerned about their private e-mails leading to disclosure of secret info and more concerned that they're using private e-mails to avoid disclosing non-classified material to the public. I suspect we classify way too much, not for legitimate security reason but to avoid the people finding about gov't officials' mistakes. A non-gov't email sounds like a way to avoid disclosure.
Both are serious problems, but having sensitive intelligence information on a non-secure server is an unmitigated disaster for national defense AND our abilities to negotiate with other nations. The only reason they are trying to cover things up is because they knew it was wrong and unlawful in the first place!
As to classification levels, much of that is automatic based on the topic. And I find no problem with initially classifying something at one level and then moving it down later. Actionable information always has a time frame. If one is still within that time frame, that information is far more sensitive than it would be later when the window of opportunity has closed.
I think the system is abused to classify everything to avoid public scrutiny. That does not excuse mishandling classified materials at all. I'm saying in addition to the risk of the information falling into the wrong hands, I think these officials use private e-mail to avoid public scrutiny.
If you can not only execute the laws but make them as well as President Obama has for 7 years, there is nothing to stop Hillary if she were elected. The Republicans certainly haven't shown any inkling to do so.
"If you can not only execute the laws but make them as well as President Obama has for 7 years, there is nothing to stop Hillary if she were elected." This applies to everyone. There's nothing to stop [insert hypothetical future president here]. No one is running on decreasing executive branch power.
Several of the Presidential candidates on the Republican side, including both Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, are. And when asked in debates, none of the Republican candidates are asking for more executive power.
The other thing to be noted is that the Press only criticizes one side of the aisle on Executive Actions. They railed on Bush II for them yet have praised Obama on his, even though of the two only Obama has used it as blatantly for extra-Executive actions.
"Several of the Presidential candidates on the Republican side, including both Carly Fiorina and Ted Cruz, are." Really? That's great. I haven't followed it that closely. This is one of the most important issues.
Difference being none of those you mentioned held Federal Office - especially in the State Department - and therefore fell under Federal laws for document protection and disclosure. I'm all for prosecuting someone who falls afoul of the law, but you're going to have to persuade me that there is a case against these others.
The consequences don't matter. Why? Because they say so, that's why.
So there!
.
As birds go in old dino's (dazzling,or dazzled, take your pick) mind, Clueless Kerry and that entitled dingbat hag rank as equals among ground birds such as chickens and turkeys, who just can't fly right, let's say, compared to far brighter American bald eagles.
Bernie has a lot of bad policy positions, and somewhere around 10% to 15% good ones. But I don't think he'd be nearly as successful at implementing his policies as Hillary would.
All in all, Benghazi Killary is a dangerous sociopath, who already has blood on her hands.
I'm also thinking of how she protected her future political career plus eight First Lady years by harassing women her hubby had raped or had affairs with.
And the same goes for the army of zombie Dimofwit voters she has in the bag many bleating her own question, "Don't you want a first female president?"
Should she become president, I imagine sexist cards will be pulled against her policy critics.
The old adage about the problem with Socialism.
Ah, memories, back in the mid-90's I had a running five day editorial published in the Elko Daily Free Press. It was a lengthy muse on jurisdictions and how the first Clinton should have been in Leavenworth. God, that was twenty years ago.
There is no way in hell we can afford another Clinton, and one that cackles while getting away with it all. Last night was sickening.
Biden just dithered about and then his son died. By the time Biden got back to thinking about politics, the decision was made. Warren didn't want to go toe-to-toe with Clinton, preferring to be able to play the woman card like Hillary has. (Of course she's going to get panned bigtime for playing the phony Native American card.) I'll bet that O'Malley was paid by the Clintons to get in the race and then bow out exactly as he's done in order to get his name recognition up for a run in eight years or so.
He's our Donald Trump.
"I often resist challenging a customer when I think it will do no good and could cause me to lose business."
Are you saying Trump is more likely to lie than Sanders? That sounds right to me.
"I think he was there to make it look like Hillary had to fight "
Do you think some Democrats almost arranged for Sanders' partial success for this reason?
He does a good job, though, of coming off as an iconoclast.
I don't see any president fixing it because part of the problem is excessive power of the presidency. It's hard for someone to have the extraordinary commitment and ability to win but then not use the powers the last president took. Most of the candidates except Ron Paul in '08 don't even promise to do that. Maybe Rand Paul did too. Rand Paul sees the need to limit gov't in general. I don't remember if he said he would limit the presidency.
And our journey to the dark side will be complete.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBJh6...
A) restrict the freedom and liberty of its citizens
B) ignore division of powers through the creation of laws by either the executive or judicial branches
C) tax and regulate the citizens to death
D) authorize spending with money we don't have
Of course, that's just little-old, naive, ideological me... ;)
1) The Dems will find or invent some Republicans who did something as bad or worse
2) The Reps will realize that if they prosecute then the next time Dems are in power they'll start prosecuting Republicans.
Neither side will be inclined to break the unwritten rule that they don't enforce the rules on each other. They may make a tremendous amount of noise and have investigations and committee hearings, but in the end they'll pretend there was no intent (as if that matters) or that the laws that were broken aren't important enough to worry about.
Years ago CT sent its governor, John Rowland, to federal prison. He was corrupt to the core and had broken lots of laws and was charged with numerous counts of very serious crimes. In the end he was convicted of the least important charge, akin to parking on the street during a snow ban, and the rest were dropped. He took a federal vacation for a little over a year.
I think this quote is accurate--Thoreau says to Emerson "Simplify Simplify Simplify". Emerson says "ONE Simplify would have been enough"
TERM LIMITS
Why can't this get grass roots traction? They will never do it to themselves.
I know-Kerry is not elected-but this culture is mind numbing. Hillary is accused of taking over $600K from Goldman Sachs. OK, free market. I think Ted Crews' wife works at Goldman.
We need out of the beltway, fiscally responsible, business experienced men and women-not looking for a government job to serve-and go home. Atlas just puked on Kerry's Gucci's.
As to classification levels, much of that is automatic based on the topic. And I find no problem with initially classifying something at one level and then moving it down later. Actionable information always has a time frame. If one is still within that time frame, that information is far more sensitive than it would be later when the window of opportunity has closed.
This applies to everyone. There's nothing to stop [insert hypothetical future president here]. No one is running on decreasing executive branch power.
The other thing to be noted is that the Press only criticizes one side of the aisle on Executive Actions. They railed on Bush II for them yet have praised Obama on his, even though of the two only Obama has used it as blatantly for extra-Executive actions.
Really? That's great. I haven't followed it that closely. This is one of the most important issues.
whom BHO has shared his anointment with, to the
immense chagrin of us commoners. -- j
.