And in something that will probably come up in Trump's commentary soon, the FBI found another 14,900 documents from Clinton not previously disclosed as part of the email probe.
Talk about a shitty article. Then again, I don't expect much from the WP.
|
And in something that will probably come up in Trump's commentary soon, the FBI found another 14,900 documents from Clinton not previously disclosed as part of the email probe.
"Republicans have called for the quick release of the emails as some states begin early voting just one month from now.
'The process for reviewing these emails needs to be expedited, public disclosure should begin before early voting starts, and the emails in question should be released in full before Election Day,' Republican National Committee Chair Reince Priebus said in a statement."
Careful there Reince... you're in danger of making it seem like the e-mail probe might have something to do with the election.
And in something that will probably come up in Trump's commentary soon, the FBI found another 14,900 documents from Clinton not previously disclosed as part of the email probe.Talk about a s**%ty article. Then again, I don't expect much from the WP.
No? From whom do you expect more?
Don't have much of an opinion of them myself (second more presitigious bourgeois paper in the USA?) but I was amused by this line in conjunction with your post.
"Spencer S. Hsu is an investigative reporter, two-time Pulitzer finalist and national Emmy award nominee."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, Democracy Now! did its main bits today on the Saudi war in Yemen, and the responsibility born by the United States (refuelling their planes, our intelligence providing them with targets, etc.). Wanted to do some searches for all those articles about the Saudis making donations to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was greenlighting weapon sales to them as Secretary of State, but La Principessa and the Nigerian Princess are waiting for me to take them shopping.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Careful their Reince... you're in danger of making it seem like the e-mail probe might have something to do with the election.In fairness, it does. If there is some kind of smoking gun in those emails, I want it to come out before the election.
Since I doubt there is, I actually suspect it would better for Republicans to drag the release out, let them keep hinting there was something damning there.Obviously, care should be taken with any such public release to keep from releasing anything that's actually secret.
The problem is that neither Priebus nor anyone else knows whether there is anything 'criminally significant' in these messages or not. However, he obviously doesn't care. He wants them released ASAP regardless... because it has always been about taking Clinton down politically rather than there being any plausible basis for doing so legally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Careful there Reince... you're in danger of making it seem like the e-mail probe might have something to do with the election.
If Clinton really was an 11-dimensional chess mastermind, she would have made sure one of those emails would have "Subeirp Ecnier" in the subject line.
Life wouldn't be any fun if we had the answer to every question. o wo~ So I'm going to call that one a solid "maybe".
...
Do note, however, that I'm an Outer God - not a mere Great Old One.
Well still you and yours represent a threat to...something I think. But now that I know you got Michelle Bachmann, everything is making sense.
About her I mean.
If "Bachmann-Turnip Outer God" was a band name, what genre of music would they play?
I represent a threat to your sense, but not to your dollars. Probably. Unless we let the Great Old Ones return. Then money will be the least of your problems. 8D
@Nigel: If their heads haven't already exploded from knowledge humans were not meant to know, then they're clearly just in it for the money and don't truly believe. I'm gonna go ahead and guess Nintendocore.
And in something that will probably come up in Trump's commentary soon, the FBI found another 14,900 documents from Clinton not previously disclosed as part of the email probe.
The headline doesn't agree with the body of the article. The headline says "another," but the article doesn't mention any email that weren't reviewed during the FBI investigation. Not that I'm arguing with you, Red. I guess I'm pointing out to Doodles that while a two-time pulitzer finalist* wrote the article, it sure wasn't one who wrote the headline.
*Doesn't that make him a two-time loser, though? You know why the US gets more olympic medals than any other country? 'Cause we count the silvers and the bronzes and, like, every other nation on earth just counts the golds, 'cause second and third aren't wins.
Well, I suppose we'll hear more once they have time to review them. XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If "Bachmann-Turnip Outer God" was a band name, what genre of music would they play?
Japanese Fish Pop.
I represent a threat to your sense, but not to your dollars. Probably. Unless we let the Great Old Ones return. Then money will be the least of your problems. 8D
@Nigel: If their heads haven't already exploded from knowledge humans were not meant to know, then they're clearly just in it for the money and don't truly believe. I'm gonna go ahead and guess Nintendocore.
Yeah I figured if the Old Ones show up, we're not going to worry much about money. Also my senses are already screwed.
Nintendocore? Nah. That's just for when they're trying to record their Japanese Fish Pop.
Well, I suppose we'll hear more once they have time to review them. XD
I saw that, Red! :P
Nintendocore? Nah. That's just for when they're trying to record their Japanese Fish Pop.
Yeah, but what else would you call rocking hard on people's happy childhood memories in an effort to get them to support you instead of paying attention to the often-better options available these days? o wo
And in something that will probably come up in Trump's commentary soon, the FBI found another 14,900 documents from Clinton not previously disclosed as part of the email probe.The headline doesn't agree with the body of the article. The headline says "another," but the article doesn't mention any email that weren't reviewed during the FBI investigation. Not that I'm arguing with you, Red. I guess I'm pointing out to Doodles that while a two-time pulitzer finalist* wrote the article, it sure wasn't one who wrote the headline.
*Doesn't that make him a two-time loser, though? You know why the US gets more olympic medals than any other country? 'Cause we count the silvers and the bronzes and, like, every other nation on earth just counts the golds, 'cause second and third aren't wins.
Actually, this may be my big problem with the article. It implies that these are new, undisclosed emails by Clinton that were hidden, when in reality these were not new. They are emails that the Justice Department obtained through their investigation that they cleared her in, but that she no longer had, and therefore previous freedom of information requests to the state department couldn't grant. The headline is a big part of why the article comes across as misleading.
Asange now says he has proof Hilary sold weapons to Al Qeada for use against Asad...
This one is for the lols
LOL
Actually, this may be my big problem with the article. It implies that these are new, undisclosed emails by Clinton that were hidden, when in reality these were not new. They are emails that the Justice Department obtained through their investigation that they cleared her in, but that she no longer had, and therefore previous freedom of information requests to the state department couldn't grant. The headline is a big part of why the article comes across as misleading.
"Washington (CNN)A federal judge set a preliminary schedule Monday for the release of nearly 15,000 documents between Hillary Clinton and top aides when she was the secretary of state.
The State Department was directed to assess 14,900 documents it received from the FBI as part of the investigation into Clinton's use of her private email server while she was secretary of state, determine a plan to release the documents and report back to the court September 23. "I may well be wrong, (and dear god help me, I'm reading cnn) but it sure sounds like these are new emails that have not been gone over by anyone. EDIT: This headline also seems to indicate that these are new emails.
"Clinton’s lawyers also may have deleted some of the emails as “personal,” Comey said, noting their review relied on header information and search terms, not a line-by-line reading as the FBI conducted." -WP article. Given that Clinton's lawyers seemed to be the ones doing the filtering, I don't trust their idea of what should be given over for investigation and what should not.
I don't really think there is anything in Clinton's emails that would affect her supporters one way or the other. Maybe something that could get people to vote against her, but her supporters seem willing to overlook anything, because she is not Trump.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, this may be my big problem with the article. It implies that these are new, undisclosed emails by Clinton that were hidden, when in reality these were not new. They are emails that the Justice Department obtained through their investigation that they cleared her in, but that she no longer had, and therefore previous freedom of information requests to the state department couldn't grant. The headline is a big part of why the article comes across as misleading."Washington (CNN)A federal judge set a preliminary schedule Monday for the release of nearly 15,000 documents between Hillary Clinton and top aides when she was the secretary of state.
The State Department was directed to assess 14,900 documents it received from the FBI as part of the investigation into Clinton's use of her private email server while she was secretary of state, determine a plan to release the documents and report back to the court September 23. "
I may well be wrong, (and dear god help me, I'm reading cnn) but it sure sounds like these are new emails that have not been gone over by anyone. EDIT: This headline also seems to indicate that these are new emails."Clinton’s lawyers also may have deleted some of the emails as “personal,” Comey said, noting their review relied on header information and search terms, not a line-by-line reading as the FBI conducted." -WP article. Given that Clinton's lawyers seemed to be the ones doing the filtering, I don't trust their idea of what should be given over for investigation and what should not.
I don't really think there is anything in Clinton's emails that would affect her supporters one way or the other. Maybe something that could get people to vote against her, but her supporters seem willing...
Except none of this is actually new information. The FBI said during their investigation that they recreated thousands of emails that she had deleted, either through reconstruction on old servers or because the people she corresponded with still had them. The only change here is that the FBI has turned over all the emails they collected to the State Department, and the State Department is going slowly in complying with a freedom of information request about them because they have to verify the content. These aren't new emails into an investigation, they are just previously unreleased to the public. Not to mention many of them may have already been released because the 2 collections of emails, the FBI's and the State Departments, haven't been integrated with each other.
This is a non-story trying to be made into a story.\
edit: and that is why it is a bad article. Its implying that these are new and sensational, when they have already been looked at by the FBI (otherwise they wouldn't be turning them over to the state department), and they have been found to be not incriminating. All that is news is that the State Department is being slow to comply with a witch hunt.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I may well be wrong, (and dear god help me, I'm reading cnn) but it sure sounds like these are new emails that have not been gone over by anyone.
Nope. These are old emails that the FBI has been in possession of for a while, now.
A non-story, per usual. How many of these are people going to read before they stop leaping to, "Surely, THIS will be the story that actually leads to something incriminating!"
It isn't happening. It wasn't happening any of the hundreds of times people posted clickbait email scandal articles months and months ago, and it isn't going to happen at some point in the future.
But surely, THIS will be the one!
If the Clintons were guilty of half of what they've been accused of, the GOP would be too busy taking notes to sling mud.
If the Clintons were guilty of half of what they've been accused of, the GOP would be too busy taking notes to sling mud.
and if they got that number up to 3/4s they'd be busy being the mud
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Actually, this may be my big problem with the article. It implies that these are new, undisclosed emails by Clinton that were hidden, when in reality these were not new. They are emails that the Justice Department obtained through their investigation that they cleared her in, but that she no longer had, and therefore previous freedom of information requests to the state department couldn't grant. The headline is a big part of why the article comes across as misleading."Washington (CNN)A federal judge set a preliminary schedule Monday for the release of nearly 15,000 documents between Hillary Clinton and top aides when she was the secretary of state.
The State Department was directed to assess 14,900 documents it received from the FBI as part of the investigation into Clinton's use of her private email server while she was secretary of state, determine a plan to release the documents and report back to the court September 23. "
I may well be wrong, (and dear god help me, I'm reading cnn) but it sure sounds like these are new emails that have not been gone over by anyone. EDIT: This headline also seems to indicate that these are new emails."Clinton’s lawyers also may have deleted some of the emails as “personal,” Comey said, noting their review relied on header information and search terms, not a line-by-line reading as the FBI conducted." -WP article. Given that Clinton's lawyers seemed to be the ones doing the filtering, I don't trust their idea of what should be given over for investigation and what should not.
I don't really think there is anything in Clinton's emails that would affect her supporters one way or the other. Maybe something that could get people to vote against her, but her
Keep in mind that there is a vested interest in putting as much negative spin on this as possible. It might not be enough to save Trump's chances come Election Day, but it could do major damage to down-ticket Democrats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that there is a vested interest in putting as much negative spin on this as possible. It might not be enough to save Trump's chances come Election Day, but it could do major damage to down-ticket Democrats.
I have no doubt that RNC types are bending over backwards to make a big deal about nothing, but the NYTimes.com has "New Clinton Emails Raise Shadow Over Her Campaign - The F.B.I. disclosed that it had collected nearly 15,000 new emails in its investigation of Hillary Clinton." It could very well be clickbait, or just bad reporting, but I don't see a paper like the NY Times having a vested interest in smearing Clinton or any other establishment democrat.
I don't think it matters.
Again, I don't think there is really anything that could come out that would affect anything. People have know for over a year that Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors
Many of whom were serial human rights violators.
Nothing illegal, but it seems that should be the sort of thing that is frowned upon in government. I personally feel that if you are a politician who accepts large amounts of cash, you should be ineligible for a position to give favors to those who paid you a lot of money. Obviously, many people disagree with this idea. What I perceive as bribery is shrewd business dealings to others.
Again, I don't think there is really anything that could come out that would affect anything. People have know for over a year that Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors
Many of whom were serial human rights violators.
Bomb those Houthi babies and MSF hospitals with Hillary-approved war materiel!
This just in: Clinton spends too much time with donors, not enough time with voters. This from the same right-wing that gave us Citizens United.
I can't wait for this election to be over so we can get back to the normal deluge of political hay-making.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not gonna lie, that's impressive in its own completely insane way.
Bomb those Houthi babies and MSF hospitals with Hillary-approved war materiel!
Again, I don't think there is really anything that could come out that would affect anything. People have know for over a year that Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors
Many of whom were serial human rights violators.
What a pity you aren't going to vote against her, Doodles.
To be fair (well, slightly fair-ish, I guess) the story and NPR piece were before Trump went to Louisiana. Not that Louisianans haven't developed an immunity to PR appearances in the continual s**tstorm of disasters since Katrina.
And in other news, now that Trump is taking donations from others, he's significantly increased the rent he's charging his campaign for space in Trump Tower.
Cause it's all about the grifting.
Are you sure you didn't mean "job creating"?
;-)
This just in: Clinton spends too much time with donors, not enough time with voters. This from the same right-wing that gave us Citizens United. ...
I don't think the amount of time spent is really the issue. Almost all politicians who receive large amounts of money from special interests (lobbyists or wealthy individuals), then turn around and reward those special interests. That money --> influence relationship is the problem.
This isn't really a Left/Right issue, or a Democrat/Republican issue. ACLU supports the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling, while John McCain is against it. It is an integrity issue. Almost no major politicians are willing to forgo the dirty money, or even alter the system so that dirty money gives less of an advantage. They have more faith in the ads they can buy, then the voters they are trying to influence - perhaps with good reason, perhaps not.
Given the track records of the major parties, and looking at who is paying money to current candidates, I don't see any of this changing anytime soon. Politicians don't bite the hand that feeds them. Perhaps in a decade or so, but the current group of hogs are all too happy gorging themselves at the dirty money trough, and enough voters are willing to keep them there rather then risk a different hog taking their place.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, members of Congress are basically telemarketers anyway, so I'm not surprised that who can give them money is a pretty important factor in their thinking...
Well, members of Congress are basically telemarketers anyway, so I'm not surprised that who can give them money is a pretty important factor in their thinking...
Article: ... It was attended by members of Congress, major donors and lobbyists, including this man who was not too happy to see our camera crew.
[Man: Ass ****]...Wait, you can't say hole, (or hats?) on CBS but you can say ass? I don't understand censorship at all!
This isn't really a Left/Right issue, or a Democrat/Republican issue.
The decision itself, IIRC, was split right exactly right/left lines. I admit I'm surprised about the ACLU, though. This might be the first time I've completely disagreed with them.
Well, members of Congress are basically telemarketers anyway, so I'm not surprised that who can give them money is a pretty important factor in their thinking...Article: ... It was attended by members of Congress, major donors and lobbyists, including this man who was not too happy to see our camera crew.
[Man: Ass ****]...
Wait, you can't say hole, (or hats?) on CBS but you can say ass? I don't understand censorship at all!
You can't put them together. Presumably they get to choose which side of the word to bleep and they choose the one that obscures the meaning less. It's just like "god" and "damn" that way.
Yes, censorship is goofy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{crosses eyes, sticks out tongue}
What a pity you aren't going to vote against her, Doodles.Bomb those Houthi babies and MSF hospitals with Hillary-approved war materiel!
Again, I don't think there is really anything that could come out that would affect anything. People have know for over a year that Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors
Many of whom were serial human rights violators.
What a pity you're going to vote for her, Dicey.
What a pity you're going to vote for her, Dicey.What a pity you aren't going to vote against her, Doodles.Bomb those Houthi babies and MSF hospitals with Hillary-approved war materiel!
Again, I don't think there is really anything that could come out that would affect anything. People have know for over a year that Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors
Many of whom were serial human rights violators.
Okay, but what if, right then and there in the voting booth, I have some sort of epiphany and write in my own name because I honestly believe I'm a more trustworthy choice? I obviously won't win the election, but it's not a vote for Clinton. I also get to vote for all the down ballot issues that really affect my life in a day to day way.
It's probably nothing a goblin who thinks that voting is for ninnies would understand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing illegal, but it seems that should be the sort of thing that is frowned upon in government. I personally feel that if you are a politician who accepts large amounts of cash, you should be ineligible for a position to give favors to those who paid you a lot of money. Obviously, many people disagree with this idea. What I perceive as bribery is shrewd business dealings to others.
It's not frowned upon in the government though. You're basically describing US foreign policy since 1940 (with the Wilson and Monroe doctrines being the basis/justification for doing it).
It's so entrenched, I highly doubt Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein or Gary Johnson would be able to change it even if they were elected president. Name a president who didn't engage in this policy, and I'd bet they were born before the end of Reconstruction.
I don't like it either, but I'm not going to vote based on an issue that zero candidates can even change (regardless of their opinion on the subject). This is going to continue as long as the US is a superpower, and probably for a while afterwards too.
Edit: Here's an example, Carter was the most vocal opponent of arms sales of any president in the past 70 years. Yet his administration sold billions of arms EVERY YEAR. Including:
Even before announcing this decision, Carter had made a virtual about-face on the arms export issue. In February 1978 he authorized the transfer of two hundred advanced combat aircraft to three countries in the Middle East—-supplying sixty F-15s to Saudi Arabia, fifty F-5Es to Egypt, and a combination of ninety F-15s and F-16s to Israel. Six months later he gave preliminary approval to the sale of another $12 billion worth of high-tech weaponry to Iran. Other major sales of this sort were announced in the final months of his administration.
And that was a president who saw arms sales as the greatest threat to peace possible.
Okay, but what if, right then and there in the voting booth, I have some sort of epiphany and write in my own name because I honestly believe I'm a more trustworthy choice? I obviously won't win the election, but it's not a vote for Clinton. I also get to vote for all the down ballot issues that really affect my life in a day to day way.
It's probably nothing a goblin who thinks that voting is for ninnies would understand.
Since we've been having this argument since 2012, I looked up the ballot initiatives in our respective states in that election. I used a site called Ballotpedia, "The Encyclopedia of American Poliics." I know many states had referendums on marijuana legalization and gay marriage in 2012, but it doesn't look like either of our fair states were among them.
Rhode Island--Seven ballot measures; two about opening casinos, five for the issuing of state bonds. Some of the latter look supportable, but I think I'd be happier taxing the rich. The two scheduled for 2016 look pretty blah, too.
New Hampshire--Three ballot measures; would ban new personal income tax, something about the chief justice of the state Supreme Court, create a convention to revise the state constitution. There don't appear to be any scheduled yet for 2016.
I think I can resist the urge to register this year.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing illegal, but it seems that should be the sort of thing that is frowned upon in government. I personally feel that if you are a politician who accepts large amounts of cash, you should be ineligible for a position to give favors to those who paid you a lot of money. Obviously, many people disagree with this idea. What I perceive as bribery is shrewd business dealings to others.It's not frowned upon in the government though. You're basically describing US foreign policy since 1940 (with the Wilson and Monroe doctrines being the basis/justification for doing it).
It's so entrenched, I highly doubt Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein or Gary Johnson would be able to change it even if they were elected president. Name a president who didn't engage in this policy, and I'd bet they were born before the end of Reconstruction.
I don't like it either, but I'm not going to vote based on an issue that zero candidates can even change (regardless of their opinion on the subject). This is going to continue as long as the US is a superpower, and probably for a while afterwards too.
Edit: Here's an example, Carter was the most vocal opponent of arms sales of any president in the past 70 years. Yet his administration sold billions of arms EVERY YEAR. Including:
Even before announcing this decision, Carter had made a virtual about-face on the arms export issue. In February 1978 he authorized the transfer of two hundred advanced combat aircraft to three countries in the Middle East—-supplying sixty F-15s to Saudi Arabia, fifty F-5Es to Egypt, and a combination of ninety F-15s and F-16s to Israel. Six months later he gave preliminary approval to the sale of another $12 billion worth of high-tech weaponry to Iran. Other major sales of this sort were announced in the final months of his administration.And that was a president who saw arms sales as...
I hate to speak for Comrade Fergie, but I don't think he's necessarily talking about the generalized imperialist war-mongering and weapon sales to dictators that are, indeed, the United States' stock in trade, but rather the explicit "pay-to-play" nature of the "donate to the Clinton Foundation, get greenlighted for weapon sales" game that appears to have been going on while she was Secretary of State.
I'll quote the first two paragraphs of the Mother Jones article on the chance that posters aren't reading it:
"In 2011, the State Department cleared an enormous arms deal: Led by Boeing, a consortium of American defense contractors would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns over the kingdom's troublesome human rights record. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to an International Business Times investigation released Tuesday.
"The Saudi transaction is just one example of nations and companies that had donated to the Clinton Foundation seeing an increase in arms deals while Hillary Clinton oversaw the State Department. IBT found that between October 2010 and September 2012, State approved $165 billion in commercial arms sales to 20 nations that had donated to the foundation, plus another $151 billion worth of Pentagon-brokered arms deals to 16 of those countries—a 143 percent increase over the same time frame under the Bush Administration. The sales boosted the military power of authoritarian regimes such as Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, which, like Saudi Arabia, had been criticized by the department for human rights abuses."