May 21, 2016

"It is all about me"

and the money, too, of course. That is what it is about for Hillary Clinton.

I am surprised at a couple of things you said (meaning I didn't know you knew them) but I will throw in a couple of thoughts.

Yes, she has endangered President Obama's term in office. I knew that when I read about another incident I do not want to describe here right now. Many people think that he will "save" her but the truth of the matter is, I am going to put this politely, he will not influence her future.

There is a legal perspective under which one can say President Obama is responsible for the acts of Hillary Clinton, but I don't want to talk about that either. I want him to be able to leave office in a dignified manner unscathed by this debacle. He has done a wonderful job for the most part, and he deserves credit for that. A lot. Not an impeachment.

I do not know what will be the outcome of this whole devastating debacle, but I do know that some time ago the FBI's opinion was that it had enough evidence to nail down her indictment and conviction, and that if it did not happen that would be for political reasons, in which case many agents and probably Comey as well would resign. The DOJ seems to agree that the evidence is there, but the problem is other people think the ramifications of an indictment are potentially too earth-shattering to touch. Hard to imagine, isn't it?

I personally hope that Hillary after seeing all of the evidence the FBI has negotiates a deal that allows her no time in prison.

Sam

May 13, 2016

"Bernie Sanders Could Still Win the Democratic Nomination -- No, Seriously" says Huff-Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/bernie-sanders-could-still-win-the-democratic-nomination----no-seriously_b_9898436.html

After Clinton’s Indiana loss, John King had told CNN viewers that “if Sanders were to win nine out of ten of the remaining contests, there’s no doubt that some of the super-delegates would panic. There’s no doubt some of them would switch to Sanders. What he has to do is win the bulk of the remaining contests. Would that send jitters, if not panic, through the Democratic Party? Yes. Yes it would.”

* * *

Super-delegates would be meaningless if their only purpose were to validate the primary and caucus results, which is why that consideration had absolutely nothing to do with their creation. When super-delegates were created in 1984, it was in fact to avoid a repeat of what had almost happened in 1980: a candidate with no shot at winning the general election almost becoming the popular-vote and pledged-delegate winner. It may seem counter-intuitive to some now, but the Democratic Party in 1984 wanted a mechanism available to vote down the Party’s prospective nominee — the popular-vote and pledged-delegate winner — if that person couldn’t be elected in the November general election. So when Howard Dean, former presidential candidate and Democratic National Committee Chair, said several months ago that he would cast his super-delegate vote without regard for the popular vote or pledged-delegate race, he was only stating what has been true about super-delegates for 32 years now: their role in the process is only “activated” either (a) to validate a historically weak front-runner who isn’t able to clinch the nomination via pledged delegates alone (in which case the super-delegates are “active,” and yet things would be no different if they didn’t exist), or, more profoundly, (b) to preclude the nomination of someone who can’t win the general election.

* * *

If Sanders runs the table in 2016, it will mean the following has (by June 7th) happened:

Sanders has won 19 of the final 25 state primaries and caucuses (not a typo);

Sanders is within a few hundred thousand votes of Clinton in the popular vote;

Sanders has won 54 percent of the pledged delegates since Super Tuesday; and

Sanders is in a dead heat with Clinton in national polling.

Much, much more at the above link. And kudos to CNN's John King, who appears to have initiated the "run the table" scenario on CNN.

So cheer up, Sanders' supporters, and the next time someone tells you Sanders can't win, smile and tell them he is running the table.

Sam

May 12, 2016

Here is a strange thing

For the first time since this campaign started, I sensed last night something bubbling underneath the surface. I started thinking about it, but then the phone rang. It was my Republican brother from Florida. I told him what I was feeling, and he said he felt the same thing.

Things are not the way they were even last week. When I watched the coverage of the West Virginia primary, I couldn't believe CNN. It was actually civil, occasonally complimentary, of Bernie. Today we read Rupert Murdock wants people to vote for Bernie Sanders (pardon me while I step out for a heart attack). And then yesterday we had Comey stepping out of the shadows saying, this is not a security review. This is an investigation. Not a big deal, but certainly done for a reason....

It is a lot of little things starting to come together that makes me feel something is bubbling underneath. Perhaps it is a combination of a political volcano erupting over a mountain of alleged criminal allegations which leaves us uneasy.

Sam

May 12, 2016

Absolutely correct

Additionally, the first early states to vote where chosen for the perception they would all go for Hillary. Sanders at that time was a virtual unknown in that part of the Country. Most in the South had never heard his name or heard him speak. During that time frame, both Sanders and O'Malley were experiencing "The Big Ignore" from the MSM, which enhanced Hillary's odds. Those successive wins by Clinton allowed her to jump to an amazing early lead, after which she started staying she was inevitable.

Maybe someone should have told Hillary the only things inevitable are death and taxes.

Looking at the tools Bernie Sanders had on hand to compete with the Clinton machine, and looking at where he is now, it is clear what he has achieved is Herculean. The integrity, intelligence and the platform on which he stands has riveted the masses in a manner I personally have never before observed, and I have been watching for decades.

Sam

May 11, 2016

Bill Press just said, as the former Chairman of the California Democratic Party, I think Bernie wins

it. I also think he will carry Oregon and maybe Kentucky. Press is sitting on the CNN commentary panel this evening, and the whole panel wonderfully has been fair and impartial. CNN also ran a good bit of Sanders' speech this evening.

I personally think if the voters in Kentucky are as impacted by Clinton's remarks about doing away with coal miners' jobs as were the people of West Virginia, Bernie Sanders might add a second southern state to his quiver of wins.

He is doing well driving home the point he has the better chance of defeating Trump in the General Election.

It also seems noticeable he has fully recovered his fighting spirit and is indeed in it to win it.

Sam

May 10, 2016

Why did you say this? I am interested because that is also where I believe this is going

A special prosecutor takes Loretta Lynch off the hook. It will also delay a finding for probably two years. If Hillary wins the Democratic primary and should triumph over Trump, sitting in the Oval Office as President will give her a certain protection she does not now have. While the talk of a Republican impeachment rattles around, perhaps those spreading this do not realize a President can only be impeached for conviction of crimes committed during his or her term in office. A President cannot be impeached for a crime committed during the time frame before he or she took office. That is not to say a President cannot be forced out via other means; for instance, Nixon was talked into resigning based on the fact if he did not, the votes were there to impeach him. Nixon's crimes however were committed while he was in office.

The point is Hillary once she assumes her role as President (if she does in fact) cannot be impeached over crimes committed prior to her presidency. I do not see how a Special Prosecutor's investigation would be concluded before Inauguration Day. In other words, appointing a Special Prosecutor would be a stall tactic by the DOJ to drag this matter out so long it would simply fizzle from a lack of gas.

I heard the info from a Constitutional expert about the crime must have been committed during the President's term in office, not before. It was an interview some time ago, and I believe it was Jonathan Turley. I have found this which seems to back that up:

Relating to the President’s Official Duties

The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply "maldministration." This view is buttresses in part by an analysis of the entire phrase "high crimes or misdemeanors" which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.
- See more at: http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html#sthash.GuEPMiqj.dpuf

litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

In other words, this is a wordy way of saying what is a simple concept: drag the thing out until it dies on its own.

Sam

May 10, 2016

I will try to answer your questions

but in the interest of full disclosure, I am supporting Sanders. I also think whether Ms Clinton is indicted or not will have zero impact on Sanders' success or failure as a candidate. Should for any reason she drop out, the DNC will drop kick a New Dem or Third Way politician in so fast, it will make both our heads spin. Other than that, I have followed this issue closely because I have a keen interest in national security issues, and I wanted to know the truth, independent of political spin.

Your questions:

1. Who had authority to approve the use for State Department officials to use a private email server system?

2. What were the systems administrators plans to comply with FOIA?

3. Why was a permanent IG not in place during Secretary Clinton's tenure, and why was one appointed immediately following her departure?

My responses:

1. I believe the answer is no one since the very strict rules were outlined in print, Hillary Clinton signed a statement saying she was aware of the rules and would adhere to them. Barring a wholesale, legitimate change in those rules which applied to everyone (I am not aware any such thing happened or is every likely to happen), she committed to performing her work through the official State Department system with its security protections in place. I have read there were other channels for Top Secret communications a limited number of people could access for superlative top secret information. I believe she at times accessed that system.

Additionally, President Obama had a specially designed security system for his Blackberry (I believe) and it had cost a lot of money, and was difficult to do. So someone with the authority did okay this, Hillary requested the same thing, but was turned down because of the cost for one thing, and because it was decided the President and only the President would be allowed to work outside the boundaries, using the safeguards put in place for him. I do not know, pertaining to your question, who had the authority to authorize this, others here might know.

2. Many FOIA requests sent to the State Department were answered with "We have no records." That was literally true as far as information on its system, but the many people at the State Department did not know Hillary was storing her work on a private server. So the proverbial excrement hit the fan one day in court when a judge who knew there had to be records in the case under review at hand was told the State Department responded to its FOIA request "We have no records." The judge knew there had to be records, and ultimately in Round 2 the reason was reported that the records were stored by the Secretary of State on her home server. (Fireworks go off here). There are now a number of lawsuits over this and I believe rightfully so.

3. A stall started to occur about appointing a permanent IG. Then it started lasting longer and longer, and it was quietly said Hillary was blocking it because she did not want anyone looking over her shoulder. That is what many speculated; I have no links. I do believe that though. I do not know why there is not one now unless Kerry didn't want one in place either.

My opinion and not a fact with links:

I believe Hillary Clinton was running her own rogue state department and she did many things she did not want people in the official State Department or the President to know. While it has often been said she did this for convenience, my opinion is that she did this because she did not want much of her work disclosed. Work stored on the State Department set-up could be viewed by many employees; work stored on home server, not.

There has been much information posted on the web, specifically I am thinking of the emails Wikileaks spilled, and I do believe there is no question that Federal laws have been broken. And while there may not be evidence of deliberate intent to break the law, I see no wiggle room for anyone to state unequivocally criminal negligence has not occurred (also a crime).

I sure I will get flamed for answering your honest, sincere question with my honest, sincere opinion but your politeness in the way you asked deserved an answer.

Sam