HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » still_one » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Current location: California
Member since: Mon Jan 26, 2004, 11:09 PM
Number of posts: 75,151

Journal Archives

Morning Consult Poll on direction where we are going reported on Morning Joe this morning

Right Direction: 28%
Wrong Track 72%

Who do you trust more to handle Healthcare?

Biden: 52%
trump: 35%

Who do you trust more to handle the economy?

trump: 45%
Biden: 44%

57% disapprove of trump's performance as President

Morning Consult Poll among 1988 registered voters from Aug 28 - Aug 30


It depends. If the looting and vandalism overtakes the protest, no

Who gives a f**k what the racist, bigot, says. Today he he said he would solve the homeless

crisis the Democrats caused

Thank-you for letting us know what the pathological liar thinks

The odds our that Kavanaugh will be confirmed, and that Roe if not over turned will

be greatly restricted.

While most of us here are rightfully angry, none of us should be surprised.

What did those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee by either not voting or voting third party think would happen?

When 47% couldn't trouble themselves to even vote, this was bound to happen

Andrea Mitchel is her own person. Who her husband is, is immaterial

Why are you so defensive?

geez, can't people grow up

West is an extremely polarizing figure, and his disrespect for President Obama, and

the words he uses to express that disrespect are extremely bad taste. He also used such vitriol against Dysan, and others in the African American community, and for someone who describes himself as a non-Marksist socialist who is a Christian, he sure seems to have a lot of aggression against folks who do not agree with him

How 'The New York Times' Bungled the Hillary Clinton Emails Story

What the hell is happening at The New York Times?

In March, the newspaper published a highly touted article about Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email account that, as I wrote in an earlier column, was wrong in its major points. The Times’s public editor defended that piece, linking to a lengthy series of regulations that, in fact, proved the allegations contained in the article were false. While there has since been a lot of partisan hullaballoo about “email-bogus-gate”—something to be expected when the story involves a political party’s presidential front-runner—the reality remained that, when it came to this story, there was no there there.

Then, on Thursday night, the Times dropped a bombshell: Two government inspectors general had made a criminal referral to the Justice Department about Clinton and her handling of the emails. The story was largely impenetrable, because at no point did it offer even a suggestion of what might constitute a crime. By Friday morning, the Times did what is known in the media trade as a “skin back”—the article now said the criminal referral wasn’t about Clinton but about the department’s handling of emails. Still, it conveyed no indication of what possible crime might be involved.

The story seemed to further fall apart on Friday morning when Representative Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) issued a statement saying that he had spoken to the inspector general of the State Department and that there had been no criminal referral regarding Clinton’s email usage. Rather, Cummings said, the inspectors general for State and the intelligence community had simply notified the Justice Department—which issues the regulations on Freedom of Information Act requests—that some emails subject to FOIA review had been identified as classified when they had not previously been designated that way.

So had the Times mixed up a criminal referral—a major news event—with a notification to the department responsible for overseeing FOIA errors that might affect some documents’ release? It’s impossible to tell, because the Times story—complete with its lack of identification of any possible criminal activity—continues to mention a criminal referral.


The problem is, it is not as if the real purpose of this memo was hard to discern. Here is the subject heading: “Potential Issues Identified by the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community Concerning the Department of State’s Process for the Review of Former Secretary Clinton’s Emails under the Freedom of Information Act (ESP-15-05)”

Get it? This is about the process being used by FOIA officials in reviewing former Secretary Clinton. And former government officials have nothing to do with how FOIA officials deal with requests for documentation. To jump from this fact to a conclusion that, somehow, someone thinks there is a criminal case against Clinton (the original story) requires a level of recklessness that borders on, well, criminal behavior.

Go to Page: 1