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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Bill USA
Bill USA's Journal
Bill USA's Journal
July 30, 2016
Donald Trump has insulted veterans by comparing his business success to those who have sacrificed their lives in battle for their country.
Video:http://abcnews.go.com/video/embed?id=41016122
Trump responded Army father Khizr Khan, who lost his son in combat, saying that he had sacrificed nothing for his country by equating his making money to deaths of fallen soldiers.
In an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Trump said, “Who wrote that? Did Hillary’s script writers write it? I think I’ve made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard….I think I’ve made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard. I’ve created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, built great structures. I’ve had tremendous success. I think I’ve done a lot.”
Trump claimed that he helped get the Vietnam War Memorial built and that he has raised millions of dollars for vets.
(more)
Trump claims - are you sitting down?- he sacrifices as much as fallen soldiers
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/30/trump-insults-military-claiming-sacrifices-fallen-soldiers.htmlDonald Trump has insulted veterans by comparing his business success to those who have sacrificed their lives in battle for their country.
Video:http://abcnews.go.com/video/embed?id=41016122
Trump responded Army father Khizr Khan, who lost his son in combat, saying that he had sacrificed nothing for his country by equating his making money to deaths of fallen soldiers.
In an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Trump said, “Who wrote that? Did Hillary’s script writers write it? I think I’ve made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard….I think I’ve made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard. I’ve created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, built great structures. I’ve had tremendous success. I think I’ve done a lot.”
Trump claimed that he helped get the Vietnam War Memorial built and that he has raised millions of dollars for vets.
(more)
July 27, 2016
“Russia, if you're listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” from emails that Hillary Clinton turned over to the State Department, Trump said in a lengthy press conference in Doral, Fla. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens. That will be next. Yes, sir.”
~~
~~
Trump was apparently referring to emails from Clinton’s private email server that she didn’t turn over to the State Department because they involved personal matters.
Trump’s incendiary comments came on the heels of the theft and leak of emails from the Democratic National Committee, an operation that, as The Daily Beast first reported, U.S. official believe was carried out by the Russian government and may have been designed to help Trump in the polls.
Trump appeared to urge a U.S. adversary suspected of criminal activity essentially to go further and attack his opponent. The comments drew ire from across the national security community.
(more)
Donald Trump’s Call for Russia to Hack the U.S. Might Be a Felony
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/27/donald-trump-s-call-for-russia-to-hack-the-u-s-might-be-a-felony.html“Russia, if you're listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” from emails that Hillary Clinton turned over to the State Department, Trump said in a lengthy press conference in Doral, Fla. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens. That will be next. Yes, sir.”
~~
~~
Trump was apparently referring to emails from Clinton’s private email server that she didn’t turn over to the State Department because they involved personal matters.
Trump’s incendiary comments came on the heels of the theft and leak of emails from the Democratic National Committee, an operation that, as The Daily Beast first reported, U.S. official believe was carried out by the Russian government and may have been designed to help Trump in the polls.
Trump appeared to urge a U.S. adversary suspected of criminal activity essentially to go further and attack his opponent. The comments drew ire from across the national security community.
(more)
July 26, 2016
I was just talking to David Kurtz about this and he noted that coverage of the Russia/Trump story has been simultaneously so cursory and outlandish that anything short of ironclad confirmation of Trump's being a Russian spy will seem like a big come-down and hardly worth noting. I have been talking to various cybersecurity experts today to try to get a handle on just what level of confidence we should have in the claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers and then leaked the email cache to Wikileaks to upend the Democratic convention. As David notes, the Russian hacking part of this is so cartoonish and out there that it's simply hard to know what to make of it, other than the fact that Trump is himself such a cartoonish figure that perhaps it all matches up.
So I thought I'd take a moment to explain what I see as a sober, one-step-at-a-time explanation of what questions need to be answered and explored.
For me you start with a series of highly disturbing and dangerous comments by Trump about Russia and NATO. As I noted a couple weeks ago, our relative peaceful and prosperous world is far from the natural or only possible order of things. Things can get bleak very quickly, especially when you're stupid. Trump's comments are far more than highly questionable foreign policy ideas. He seems unable to understand high level geopolitics as anything more than a protection racket with him running for American mob boss. Even if Trump is no more than ignorant, impulsive and stupid, these are highly disturbing intimations of a Trump presidency that should have everyone across the political spectrum taking note and re-evaluating what sort of situation we're dealing with.
But that's not all there is. On top of that you have very high level advisors to Trump who have been deeply immersed in the Putin world of dirty politics and energy concessions that characterizes Putin's Russia and the post-Soviet successor states. Those associations might simply be unsavory if the candidate were an experienced political figure or surrounded by knowledgable advisors. Neither is the case.
(more)
What's Going on With Putin and Trump and Why It's a Big, Big Deal
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/what-this-is-really-aboutI was just talking to David Kurtz about this and he noted that coverage of the Russia/Trump story has been simultaneously so cursory and outlandish that anything short of ironclad confirmation of Trump's being a Russian spy will seem like a big come-down and hardly worth noting. I have been talking to various cybersecurity experts today to try to get a handle on just what level of confidence we should have in the claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers and then leaked the email cache to Wikileaks to upend the Democratic convention. As David notes, the Russian hacking part of this is so cartoonish and out there that it's simply hard to know what to make of it, other than the fact that Trump is himself such a cartoonish figure that perhaps it all matches up.
So I thought I'd take a moment to explain what I see as a sober, one-step-at-a-time explanation of what questions need to be answered and explored.
For me you start with a series of highly disturbing and dangerous comments by Trump about Russia and NATO. As I noted a couple weeks ago, our relative peaceful and prosperous world is far from the natural or only possible order of things. Things can get bleak very quickly, especially when you're stupid. Trump's comments are far more than highly questionable foreign policy ideas. He seems unable to understand high level geopolitics as anything more than a protection racket with him running for American mob boss. Even if Trump is no more than ignorant, impulsive and stupid, these are highly disturbing intimations of a Trump presidency that should have everyone across the political spectrum taking note and re-evaluating what sort of situation we're dealing with.
But that's not all there is. On top of that you have very high level advisors to Trump who have been deeply immersed in the Putin world of dirty politics and energy concessions that characterizes Putin's Russia and the post-Soviet successor states. Those associations might simply be unsavory if the candidate were an experienced political figure or surrounded by knowledgable advisors. Neither is the case.
(more)
July 26, 2016
One day after the FBI Director criticized Hillary Clinton for her use of email while Secretary of State, even as he made clear that no charges would be appropriate, it’s now coming to light that [font size="3"]Clinton actually went to great effort to obtain more secure email devices but was turned down by other agencies. Weeks after being sworn in at State, she asked the NSA for a secure smartphone upon which she could conducted her email, but the request was repeatedly denied.[/font]
Oddly enough, evidence of Hillary Clinton’s great effort at acquiring a secure government smartphone was unwittingly uncovered when Judicial Watch, a right wing entity whose primary purpose has been to keep democrats tied up in frivolous lawsuits so they can’t govern, sued to force her emails to be publicly released. Among them is the February 2009 exchange in which Hillary Clinton’s office requested a secure BlackBerry similar to the one that had been provided to President Obama – but her requests were repeatedly declined.
After the NSA turned down her request for a secure smartphone for email, and her staff determined that the existing State Department technology infrastructure was nonexistent for such tasks, Clinton ultimately decided to get down to work by installing her own fully functional email server and tying it into her own BlackBerry for email.
This paints an entirely different picture than the supposedly “careless” behavior alleged by the FBI Director. Instead, Hillary Clinton immediately tried to go through official channels to get her hands on official government technology that would allow her communicate effectively via email, and after being railroaded in those efforts, only turned to setting up her own system out of professional necessity.
(more)
Hillary Clinton asked NSA for secure phone for email when she first took office, was turned down
... I completely missed this one.... wasn't given a whole lot of attention by M$M... jeee, I wonder why?
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/hillary-clinton-asked-nsa-for-secure-phone-for-email-when-she-first-took-office-was-rejected/25100/
One day after the FBI Director criticized Hillary Clinton for her use of email while Secretary of State, even as he made clear that no charges would be appropriate, it’s now coming to light that [font size="3"]Clinton actually went to great effort to obtain more secure email devices but was turned down by other agencies. Weeks after being sworn in at State, she asked the NSA for a secure smartphone upon which she could conducted her email, but the request was repeatedly denied.[/font]
Oddly enough, evidence of Hillary Clinton’s great effort at acquiring a secure government smartphone was unwittingly uncovered when Judicial Watch, a right wing entity whose primary purpose has been to keep democrats tied up in frivolous lawsuits so they can’t govern, sued to force her emails to be publicly released. Among them is the February 2009 exchange in which Hillary Clinton’s office requested a secure BlackBerry similar to the one that had been provided to President Obama – but her requests were repeatedly declined.
After the NSA turned down her request for a secure smartphone for email, and her staff determined that the existing State Department technology infrastructure was nonexistent for such tasks, Clinton ultimately decided to get down to work by installing her own fully functional email server and tying it into her own BlackBerry for email.
This paints an entirely different picture than the supposedly “careless” behavior alleged by the FBI Director. Instead, Hillary Clinton immediately tried to go through official channels to get her hands on official government technology that would allow her communicate effectively via email, and after being railroaded in those efforts, only turned to setting up her own system out of professional necessity.
(more)
July 26, 2016
On Sunday night, Donald Trump and Mike Pence sat down with 60 Minutes’ Lesley Stahl for their first joint interview. It got weird quickly.
"You said you would declare war against ISIS," Stahl asked Trump. "What exactly do you have—"
I assume Stahl would have finished the question with "in mind." But Trump jumped in. He was ready, or seemed to be. "It is war!" He interjected.
Stahl, too, was prepared. "When you say, ‘declare war,’ do you want to send American troops in there?" she asked.
(more)
... I hate to think of this, but I wonder ... thinking the unthinkable ... given how tough the job is, I wonder if trump won (don't count out GOP demagoguery and M$M's help) how long would it be before he said: "That's it. I quit." .. I'd say about three months.
Maybe they should start the betting on PredictIt...
Donald Trump’s 60 Minutes interview left me wondering if he even wants to be president
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/18/12215214/donald-trump-mike-pence-60-minutesOn Sunday night, Donald Trump and Mike Pence sat down with 60 Minutes’ Lesley Stahl for their first joint interview. It got weird quickly.
"You said you would declare war against ISIS," Stahl asked Trump. "What exactly do you have—"
I assume Stahl would have finished the question with "in mind." But Trump jumped in. He was ready, or seemed to be. "It is war!" He interjected.
Stahl, too, was prepared. "When you say, ‘declare war,’ do you want to send American troops in there?" she asked.
(more)
... I hate to think of this, but I wonder ... thinking the unthinkable ... given how tough the job is, I wonder if trump won (don't count out GOP demagoguery and M$M's help) how long would it be before he said: "That's it. I quit." .. I'd say about three months.
Maybe they should start the betting on PredictIt...
July 25, 2016
.. IF this were actually the case, then that would mean Secretary Clinton lied when she said she did not receive or send any emails marked classified while Secretary of State. But that is not what Comey actually said re the emails.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-hillary-clinton-tim-kaine-democratic-ticket-scott-pelley/
Of course, Comey's statement on July 5, did contain many extra-legal insinuations and implied accusations (unsupported) of Clinton. However, on the emails Comey stated:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
(all emphasis my own)
What this means is, they went to the "owning agencies" to "make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information" ... because there were NO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION HEADERS on those 110 emails. Now, either Scott Pelley is too stupid to understand this or he is grovelling before the GOP by providing counterfeit support for the GOP propaganda that Clinton lied to Congress when she said she did not "send or receive any emails marked classified"... during her tenure as Sec of State.
As Rep. Matt Cartwright made clear with his questions of Comey in the Congressional hearing, as per the governing regulation/manual on transmitting classified information, any document with classified information in it, MUST have a Classified Information Header on the document warning anybody about to look at the document that it contains classified information and that they should NOT go any further unless they have the proper security clearance. When Rep Cartwright asked Dir Comey if the three emails he said had "c"'s in their text had Classified Headers, Comey replied they did not. Thus, none of the emails that Clinton received/sent had Classified Headers on them.
Note too, that Pelley described Hillary's server as "unsecured" even though IT experts who examined the server said they could see that measures were taken to protect the server from unapproved incursions by hackers or malware.
Regarding the security of the server, Comey said that: "With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked."
But then Comey went on to say: "But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence."
But then Comey caught himself up (although he didn't know he did) by saying:
Here Comey reveals his duplicity .. or his stupidity. IF the FBI software detected malware in some emails, that software would have found malware in Clinton's server. NOTE - NOBODY goes to the trouble to get malware on someone's server, only to have it erase itself after a time. The whole POINT of getting malware onto Clinton's server would be to monitor and send updates to the "hostile actor" as to the activities on the server, such as new emails received and sent. To do that, the malware MUST reside in the servers memory. Thus, if it is there, the FBI's malware detection software that found malware in emails sure as hell would have found any malware residing in Clintons server.
[font size="3"]
So it is apparent over at CBS they certainly don't want to appear to be coming up short when it comes to helping out The Party in the coming election. And Scott Pelley seems to be challenging Charlie Rose for the distinction of being the biggest GOP toady at CBS. Enjoy licking those boots, Scott. To be fair, it's not just CBS the entire Corporate media is bailing on their job of informing the people about what's really going on with the GOP's war to protect the Plutocracy.
....and I wonder if Comey thinks Clinton was "extremely careless" with classified information, does that apply to the two to three hundred career government officials who sent Sec Clinton those emails? .. and if it applies to two to three hundred career government officials, is the standard he is using empirically based or is it theoretical? AND I wonder what would Dir Comey say if she had outed a covert CIA agent (Joe Wilson says Cheney is a Traitor)?
[/font]
CBS' Pelley repeats the GOP Big Lie about Hillary's emails - when will tv get honest newsreaders?
ON Sunday's 60 Minutes, Scott Pelley interviewing Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine, had to get in his obeisance to GOP propaganda by saying:
[font size="3"]
"The director of the FBI has said that Clinton was extremely careless and that in the tens of thousands of emails on the unsecured server several contained classified information"[/font]
.. IF this were actually the case, then that would mean Secretary Clinton lied when she said she did not receive or send any emails marked classified while Secretary of State. But that is not what Comey actually said re the emails.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-hillary-clinton-tim-kaine-democratic-ticket-scott-pelley/
Of course, Comey's statement on July 5, did contain many extra-legal insinuations and implied accusations (unsupported) of Clinton. However, on the emails Comey stated:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
(all emphasis my own)
"Where an e-mail was assessed as [font size="+1"]possibly [/font] containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency [font size="+1"]could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information[/font]..."
~~
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received."
~~
"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received."
What this means is, they went to the "owning agencies" to "make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information" ... because there were NO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION HEADERS on those 110 emails. Now, either Scott Pelley is too stupid to understand this or he is grovelling before the GOP by providing counterfeit support for the GOP propaganda that Clinton lied to Congress when she said she did not "send or receive any emails marked classified"... during her tenure as Sec of State.
As Rep. Matt Cartwright made clear with his questions of Comey in the Congressional hearing, as per the governing regulation/manual on transmitting classified information, any document with classified information in it, MUST have a Classified Information Header on the document warning anybody about to look at the document that it contains classified information and that they should NOT go any further unless they have the proper security clearance. When Rep Cartwright asked Dir Comey if the three emails he said had "c"'s in their text had Classified Headers, Comey replied they did not. Thus, none of the emails that Clinton received/sent had Classified Headers on them.
Note too, that Pelley described Hillary's server as "unsecured" even though IT experts who examined the server said they could see that measures were taken to protect the server from unapproved incursions by hackers or malware.
Regarding the security of the server, Comey said that: "With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked."
But then Comey went on to say: "But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence."
But then Comey caught himself up (although he didn't know he did) by saying:
"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account."
Here Comey reveals his duplicity .. or his stupidity. IF the FBI software detected malware in some emails, that software would have found malware in Clinton's server. NOTE - NOBODY goes to the trouble to get malware on someone's server, only to have it erase itself after a time. The whole POINT of getting malware onto Clinton's server would be to monitor and send updates to the "hostile actor" as to the activities on the server, such as new emails received and sent. To do that, the malware MUST reside in the servers memory. Thus, if it is there, the FBI's malware detection software that found malware in emails sure as hell would have found any malware residing in Clintons server.
[font size="3"]
So it is apparent over at CBS they certainly don't want to appear to be coming up short when it comes to helping out The Party in the coming election. And Scott Pelley seems to be challenging Charlie Rose for the distinction of being the biggest GOP toady at CBS. Enjoy licking those boots, Scott. To be fair, it's not just CBS the entire Corporate media is bailing on their job of informing the people about what's really going on with the GOP's war to protect the Plutocracy.
....and I wonder if Comey thinks Clinton was "extremely careless" with classified information, does that apply to the two to three hundred career government officials who sent Sec Clinton those emails? .. and if it applies to two to three hundred career government officials, is the standard he is using empirically based or is it theoretical? AND I wonder what would Dir Comey say if she had outed a covert CIA agent (Joe Wilson says Cheney is a Traitor)?
[/font]
July 23, 2016
GOP convention was a study in mob psychology, in particular, lynch-mob psychology
All the incredible shit they were saying about Clinton and nobody in M$M dared describe it as what it is, mob psychology, and outrageously reckless on the part of the GOP to incite such talk. I think Hillary should get triple the normal secret service protection. paranoic victimization talk leads to maniacal behavior. This has been demonstrated over and over again throughout the country with these screwballs shooting people.
... a few years ago one of these nuts shot Gabby Giffords. This could happen again with all this paranoic victimization talk at the GOP mob meeting.
July 21, 2016
Ramsey Orta — the man who recorded the infamous cellphone video in the Eric Garner chokehold case — has been arrested again, officials said Thursday.
Orta, 24, was videotaping cops making an arrest Wednesday evening on the Lower East Side when, police say, he got too close with his camera.
The drama began when cops stopped a car at E. Houston St. and Baruch Drive about 5:25 p.m. for having defective brake lights, police said.
The driver, Anthony Sainphor, 25, became agitated and was arrested for carrying a fake Delaware non-driver’s ID card.
(more)
Man Imprisoned After Filming Eric Garner’s Death, Refusing to Eat, Rat Poison Found in Jail Food
New York, New York – 22-year-old Ramsey Orta, the young man who filmed the NYPD killing Eric Garner, was arrested shortly after on trumped up charges. He has since been locked up at the notorious Rikers prison in New York.
Immediately following the killing of Eric Garner, Orta was stalked and targeted by police. They allegedly scrutinized Orta’s daily life until they were able to find something to charge him with. Eventually, he was confronted by police who illegally searched him and arrested him for the non-violent crime of carrying an unregistered firearm.
Orta had expressed concern for his safety after his arrest because he was sure that the police were retaliating against him for exposing what they had done to Eric Garner.
While in prison, Orta has taken seemingly drastic measures to ensure that he is not killed by the gang he witnessed murder Eric Garner. Orta has been refusing to eat, as he fears that guards may poison him because he is a high-profile opponent of police brutality. Sadly, Orta’s fears were well-founded. While he has been behind bars at Rikers, dozens of other inmates have reported traces of rat poison in their food, a claim that was actually recently admitted by prison officials.
(more)
man who filmed video of Eric Garner's death, charged for allegedly interfering with another arrest
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/man-filmed-viral-eric-garner-video-arrested-article-1.2568044Ramsey Orta — the man who recorded the infamous cellphone video in the Eric Garner chokehold case — has been arrested again, officials said Thursday.
Orta, 24, was videotaping cops making an arrest Wednesday evening on the Lower East Side when, police say, he got too close with his camera.
The drama began when cops stopped a car at E. Houston St. and Baruch Drive about 5:25 p.m. for having defective brake lights, police said.
The driver, Anthony Sainphor, 25, became agitated and was arrested for carrying a fake Delaware non-driver’s ID card.
(more)
Man Imprisoned After Filming Eric Garner’s Death, Refusing to Eat, Rat Poison Found in Jail Food
New York, New York – 22-year-old Ramsey Orta, the young man who filmed the NYPD killing Eric Garner, was arrested shortly after on trumped up charges. He has since been locked up at the notorious Rikers prison in New York.
Immediately following the killing of Eric Garner, Orta was stalked and targeted by police. They allegedly scrutinized Orta’s daily life until they were able to find something to charge him with. Eventually, he was confronted by police who illegally searched him and arrested him for the non-violent crime of carrying an unregistered firearm.
Orta had expressed concern for his safety after his arrest because he was sure that the police were retaliating against him for exposing what they had done to Eric Garner.
While in prison, Orta has taken seemingly drastic measures to ensure that he is not killed by the gang he witnessed murder Eric Garner. Orta has been refusing to eat, as he fears that guards may poison him because he is a high-profile opponent of police brutality. Sadly, Orta’s fears were well-founded. While he has been behind bars at Rikers, dozens of other inmates have reported traces of rat poison in their food, a claim that was actually recently admitted by prison officials.
(more)
July 19, 2016
Clinton said, "I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified."
Clinton has made this claim over and over again. An independent FBI investigation has found that to be inaccurate.
It’s important to remember that only "a very small number" of her emails, two, were marked classified when they were first sent, and just 110 out of the 30,000 she turned over were classified but unmarked. Evidence seems to indicate that Clinton generally dealt with classified information in an appropriate manner.
But over the course of a year, Clinton and her staff have painted a picture of an email setup where absolutely zero classified information slipped through the cracks, case closed.
We rate this statement False.
I rate Politifact's finding as Consummately Fatuous but, no doubt, approved by the GOP.
IF you're interested in a more detailed examination of Comey's verbal tricks and obfuscations (a diplomatic word for lies) see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512261723
Politifact completely duped by Comey, thinks Clinton received/sent classified information in emails
Politifact 'went to print' with their 'finding' based on Comey's statement, July 5, that seemed to definitely indicate that the FBI found emails with classified information in them. In a rush to get something on the internet, they didn't wait to hear Comey's answers to questions from House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7. To be more precise, they didn't hear Comey's answers to the questions from Democratic members of the committee in which Comey admitted that NOT ONE email Clinton received or sent was MARKED CLASSIFIED.- as is required by the Government when communicating actual classified information. And if the header - indicating Classified information is in the email - is NOT there - then you know there is no classified information in the email or attachment. Thus, Clinton's statement about not receiving or sending emails marked classified was accurate and completely truthful.
The GOP toadies at Politifact swallowed the tricky language of Comey's statement. The statement was a master class in disinformation and obfuscation. But people who claim to be able to ferret out the truth should have been able to smell something fishy in Comey's statement and waited until Comey appeared before the Committee to give more detailed testimony before announcing any findings. But that of course presupposes they are interested in the truth re Hillary Clinton, the bain of the Repugnant Party, over at Politifact.
FBI findings tear holes in Hillary Clinton's email defense
Clinton said, "I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified."
Clinton has made this claim over and over again. An independent FBI investigation has found that to be inaccurate.
It’s important to remember that only "a very small number" of her emails, two, were marked classified when they were first sent, and just 110 out of the 30,000 she turned over were classified but unmarked. Evidence seems to indicate that Clinton generally dealt with classified information in an appropriate manner.
But over the course of a year, Clinton and her staff have painted a picture of an email setup where absolutely zero classified information slipped through the cracks, case closed.
We rate this statement False.
I rate Politifact's finding as Consummately Fatuous but, no doubt, approved by the GOP.
IF you're interested in a more detailed examination of Comey's verbal tricks and obfuscations (a diplomatic word for lies) see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512261723
July 19, 2016
Punk Talk is a method of compensating for a lack of confidence and low self esteem. It is commonly identified with adolescence, a period during which young people are seeking group acceptance and dealing with issues of self-esteem. Punk Talk is intended to convince others (as well as the speaker) that the speaker is NOT A BIT fearful and NOT A BIT intimidated by anyone - or anything. Punk Talk is the affectation of real self confidence and meant to convince others the speaker is possessed of actual healthy self esteem. The good news for teens is most grow up and grow out of it. They will mature, become adults and develop a healthy self esteem and not need Punk Talk anymore. But not all teens do. Which brings me to the purpose of this post.
Now, let's be clear about this. All of us, at one time or another, can get angry and 'lash out' at someone. But Conservatives it seems, almost can't along without the aid of Punk Talk. That Punk Talk is an outgrowth of self esteem issues is apparent in that it nearly always involves speaking derisively of the other person ... rather than of what the other person is saying. The derisive speech is intended to send the message to the listener: "Ha! I look down on you!" This kind of talk is only necessary when the speaker actually is lacking in confidence and needs a confidence 'boost'. Even a short time on this site reveals the importance of Punk Talk to Conservatives - based upon how much they use it. Many Conservatives posting on this site seem to think Punk Talk takes the place of a valid argument(!?).
(more)
A Conservative's Courage: Punk Talk - it applies perfectly to Trump
http://www.discussionist.com/1015363914Punk Talk is a method of compensating for a lack of confidence and low self esteem. It is commonly identified with adolescence, a period during which young people are seeking group acceptance and dealing with issues of self-esteem. Punk Talk is intended to convince others (as well as the speaker) that the speaker is NOT A BIT fearful and NOT A BIT intimidated by anyone - or anything. Punk Talk is the affectation of real self confidence and meant to convince others the speaker is possessed of actual healthy self esteem. The good news for teens is most grow up and grow out of it. They will mature, become adults and develop a healthy self esteem and not need Punk Talk anymore. But not all teens do. Which brings me to the purpose of this post.
Now, let's be clear about this. All of us, at one time or another, can get angry and 'lash out' at someone. But Conservatives it seems, almost can't along without the aid of Punk Talk. That Punk Talk is an outgrowth of self esteem issues is apparent in that it nearly always involves speaking derisively of the other person ... rather than of what the other person is saying. The derisive speech is intended to send the message to the listener: "Ha! I look down on you!" This kind of talk is only necessary when the speaker actually is lacking in confidence and needs a confidence 'boost'. Even a short time on this site reveals the importance of Punk Talk to Conservatives - based upon how much they use it. Many Conservatives posting on this site seem to think Punk Talk takes the place of a valid argument(!?).
(more)
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PMNumber of posts: 6,436
