Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cali

cali's Journal
cali's Journal
May 26, 2016

"What I did was allowed by the State Department. It was fully above board."

Hillary Clinton, 7 September, 2015

Far from it. The OIG report sharply refutes that lie of Hillary's and there is no way to spin her statement as anything but a bald faced lie. Certainly not the only lie she told about her email imbroglio.

The report is a portrait of Clinton that paints her as imperious, dishonest, secretive, disloyal and someone with seriously flawed judgment.

In March of this year, the Washington Post, published a history of the email tale:

<snip>

One year earlier, during her own presidential campaign, Clinton had said that if elected, “we will adopt a presumption of openness and Freedom of Information Act requests and urge agencies to release information quickly.”

But in those first few days, Clinton’s senior advisers were already taking steps that would help her circumvent those high-flown words, according to a chain of internal State Department emails released to Judicial Watch, a conservative nonprofit organization suing the government over Clinton’s emails.

<snip>
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

Ironic, no? Why should anyone believe her campaign promises this year?

She was warned in no uncertain terms. The following can also be found at the link posted above:

<snip>

“Our review reaffirms our belief that the vulnerabilities and risks associated with the use of Blackberries in the Mahogany Row [redacted] considerably outweigh the convenience their use can add,” the memo said.

He emphasized: “Any unclassified Blackberry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving e-mails, and exploiting calendars.”

Nine days later, Clinton told Boswell that she had read his memo and “gets it,” according to an email sent by a senior diplomatic security official. “Her attention was drawn to the sentence that indicates (Diplomatic Security) have intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia,” the email said.

But Clinton kept using her private BlackBerry — and the basement server.

<snip>


It's damning, and clear, that Clinton had no intention of turning her emails over to archivists. She didn't while she was in office, and she didn't after she left office until forced to.

<snip>

In December 2012, near the end of Clinton’s tenure, a nonprofit group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a FOIA request seeking records about her email. CREW received a response in May 2013: “no records responsive to your request were located.”

Other requests for Clinton records met the same fate — until the State Department received a demand from the newly formed House Select Committee on Benghazi in July 2014. The committee wanted Clinton’s email, among other things, to see what she and others knew about the deadly attack in Libya and the response by the U.S. government.

<snip>
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

A few more bullet points:

She has not turned over the entirety of her work mail according to the OIG report. Months are missing from early 2009.

Staff who raised concerns about her email setup were told to shut the fuck up.

She lied repeatedly about attempted hacks.

The comparison to Powell is weak.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/11771850/hillary-clinton-emails-inspector-general-report

Trust and Hillary Clinton are two words that don't co-exist.

May 26, 2016

WaPo Editorial: Clinton’s inexcusable, willful disregard for the rules

The more we learn, the worse it looks.

Deny all you want. This is now serious. I don't know what it portends, but the profile of this debacle was just significantly raised.

And no, the Post is not pro-Trump. Heaven knows, it's not pro-Bernie.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________



By Editorial Board May 25 at 7:13 PM

HILLARY CLINTON’S use of a private email server while secretary of state from 2009 to 2013 has been justifiably criticized as an error of judgment. What the new report from the State Department inspector general makes clear is that it also was not a casual oversight. Ms. Clinton had plenty of warnings to use official government communications methods, so as to make sure that her records were properly preserved and to minimize cybersecurity risks. She ignored them.

The 83-page report declares that “beginning in late 2005 and continuing through 2011,” the department revised its Foreign Affairs Manual and “issued various memoranda specifically discussing the obligation to use Department systems in most circumstances and identifying the risks of not doing so.” Ms. Clinton didn’t.

During her tenure, State Department employees were told that they were expected to use approved, secure methods to transmit information that was sensitive but unclassified, or SBU. If they needed to transmit SBU information outside the department’s network, they were told to ask information specialists for help. The report said there is no evidence that Ms. Clinton ever asked, “despite the fact that emails exchanged on her personal account regularly contained information that was marked as SBU.” On June 28, 2011, a cable was sent to all diplomatic and consular posts over her signature warning that personal email accounts could be compromised and officials should “avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts.” At the time, Ms. Clinton was doing exactly that.

On March 11, 2011, an assistant secretary sent a memorandum on cybersecurity threats directly to Ms. Clinton, noting a “dramatic increase” in attempts to compromise personal email accounts of senior department officials, possibly for spying or blackmail. That didn’t stop Ms. Clinton either. There were also numerous notifications that some emails (but not all) are considered federal records under the law and that she should print and file those in her office and, before leaving office, surrender all emails dealing with department business. She did so only about two years later, in December 2014.

<snip>
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clintons-inexcusable-willful-disregard-for-the-rules/2016/05/25/0089e942-22ae-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html

May 25, 2016

Why is Hillary disliked as much as Trump?

Yes, a lot of it is sexism


<snip>
Women have always faced a double standard running for executive office, the highest and hardest glass ceiling to break. There’s a reason why less than 5 percent of Fortune 1000 CEOs, only 6 of the nation’s 50 governor and less than 17 percent of mayors are women: women seeking executive office have to prove that they are capable enough, while remaining likable, an extremely tough needle to threat. Men, generally speaking, don’t face the capability test: most men are assumed to be tough enough and have the experience to handle the job. But women trying to prove their bona fides can easily overshoot and become too tough, and therefore not likable.

“What research from the Barbara Lee Family Foundation finds is that likability matters more for women candidates than for men. In other words, voters are much more comfortable voting for male candidates that they don’t like, but think are qualified to serve. For women, likability and qualifications are tied together in voters’ minds. They must demonstrate both traits to earn voter support,” says Kelly Dittmar, a researcher at Rutgers University’s Center for American Women and Politics. “It’s no surprise, then, that we seem to spend a lot more time worrying about how likable Hillary Clinton is than we do about whether or not we want to have a beer with Donald Trump.”

<snip>

Indeed, 4 in 10 Americans still believe America would be better off if women and men would “stick to the jobs and tasks they are naturally suited for” according to a recent PRRI/Atlantic poll and half of Trump supporters agree with that statement, says Melissa Deckman, chair of the political science department at Washington College and author of the new book, “Tea Party Women.” “Americans have always been conflicted about women who are too ambitious, and who is Hillary Clinton if not the most politically ambitious woman in America?”

<snip>

http://time.com/4347962/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-likability/

May 25, 2016

Good commentary from, of all places, Fox News

Donald Trump wants you to know that he isn’t sure that Hillary Clinton had her friend and adviser Vince Foster murdered back in 1993.


<snip>

AND IT IS DIRTY. If Donald Trump actually thinks that Vince Foster was assassinated, he is an idiot who can’t tell the difference between a discredited internet rumor and reality. But he isn't an idiot. He is smart which he, himself--sounding like Fredo in “Godfather II”—constantly and passionately asserts). That leaves the second possibility: Trump is knowingly and falsely suggesting that Hillary Clinton is a murderer.

Trump’s stated rationale for such creepy slander is that Hillary started it by saying mean things about him. He is an innocent counter-puncher, a guy just fighting back.

This is not just childish; it is a chilling insight into what a Trump administration might be like. Opposition and criticism are fact of life for an American president. Slings and arrows come with the job. It is necessary for a president to fire back, but not with unconventional weapons.

Candidate Trump can’t do more than make Hillary Clinton lose her composure (which, I suppose, is his intention). But just imagine the kind of retaliation President Trump—in charge of the Justice Department, the FBI, the IRS and other punitive machinery of the federal government—might visit upon his political opponents, media critics, foreign leaders and just plain citizens who happen to offend him.

<snip>

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/05/25/what-donald-trumps-fishy-comments-about-vince-foster-tell-us.html

May 25, 2016

The McAuliffe inquiry is potentially very damaging for Clinton.

There is no one more closely linked to the Clintons. Virginia is a swing state and this inquiry highlights and harks back to already hardened perceptions about Hillary.

A federal review last year concluded that McAuliffe improperly lobbied officials at homeland security. This inquiry is not coming out of thin air and I doubt it's going away anytime soon.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/25/us/politics/terry-mcauliffe-wang-wenliang.htmlH

May 25, 2016

I don't just want that asswipe to lose. I want him crushed and reduced to an orange stain

I want his psyche destroyed. I want his business in a heap of rubble. I want his ego crushed. I want his humiliation to be so complete that he seals himself permanently in that God awful, tacky penthouse. I want the name Trump to become synonymous with loser. I want him to hear you're fired so many times that he becomes a blubbering pile of orange shit.

I want only the very worst for him.

May 25, 2016

Donald Trump.

That's all.

May 25, 2016

Dump Payday Debbie and put Dean back in- if he'll take it.

Yes, he's a Clinton supporter, but he's competent and a straight shooter. We need someone in that position who is effective and respected.

May 25, 2016

Functionally, Clinton will clinch the nomination on June 7. That's just reality

You can hate the democratic primary system with the passion of a thousand burning suns, but that doesn't change reality. Continuing to post that she won't, pretending that the super delegates will switch, is fantasy. It's silly.

And you know what? Bernie can't catch her. Not in the real world.

A contested convention? Pointless and counterproductive. Bernie shouldn't.

He won't.





May 25, 2016

Trump attacks Governor Susana Martinez

ALBUQUERQUE — Despite his promise to unite the Republican Party, Donald Trump attacked New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez — the chairwoman of the Republican Governor’s Association — on Tuesday night and accused her of “not doing the job."

Martinez has been critical of Trump and did not attend his Tuesday night rally at a convention center in Albuquerque, telling the local media she was “really busy” running the state. In turn, Trump stood before thousands of the people she represents and told them that the two-term governor is to blame for many of the state’s economic problems, including a dramatic increase in the number of residents receiving food stamps over the past 16 years.

“We have got to get your governor to get going,” Trump said to a cheering audience. “She’s got to do a better job. Okay? Your governor has got to do a better job. She’s not doing the job. Hey! Maybe I’ll run for governor of New Mexico. I’ll get this place going. She’s not doing the job. We’ve got to get her moving. Come on: Let’s go, governor.”

Trump also criticized Martinez for allowing “large numbers” of Syrian refugees to resettle in the state. Although governors have limited control over these federal resettlements, Trump faulted Martinez for allowing it to happen.

<snip>
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/25/trump-accuses-new-mexicos-republican-governor-of-not-doing-her-job/

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: born is LA, grew up there and in New Canaan CT
Home country: USA
Current location: East Hardwick, Vermont
Member since: Wed Sep 29, 2004, 02:28 PM
Number of posts: 114,904

Journal Entries

Latest Discussions»cali's Journal