Slashdot Mirror
Newly Published WikiLeaks Emails Show Clinton Campaign Communicated With State Department (go.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: A State Department official appeared to coordinate with Hillary Clinton's nascent presidential campaign hours before the former secretary of state's exclusive use of private emails was first detailed in a news account last year, newly released hacked emails show. Emails from the files of Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta show that the department official provided Clinton aides with the agency's official response to a New York Times reporter in advance of the newspaper's March 2015 report that Clinton had used a private email account to conduct all of her work-related business as secretary. The stolen emails were released Wednesday by WikiLeaks, part of a massive trove of emails released by the document-leaking group on a daily basis since last month. WikiLeaks has indicated it intends to leak emails stolen from Podesta's account every day through the election. In a March 1, 2015 email, State Department press aide Lauren Hickey told Clinton's spokesman Nick Merrill and two other advisers that then-State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki had "just cleared" a reply to the Times. Hickey provided the agency's response to the Clinton aides and also appeared to agree to a change requested by the campaign, saying: "Yes on your point re records -- done below." It is not clear what specific change was requested and made. State Department spokesman John Kirby said Wednesday that the department would not comment on alleged leaked documents. But he said the department's effort to "provide accurate information to the media" about Clinton's tenure at the agency has "at times required communicating with her representatives to ensure accuracy."
We didn't need another leak to let us know how corrupt the Clintons are.
Not really clear that there's anything here. A news organization always checks with the subject of an article before running the article-- this is standard procedure, and it's also standard procedure to correct errors of fact that are pointed out-- it is desirable to do this BEFORE an article runs.
I think they're stretching on this.
- The DOJ warned her ahead of interviews
- The DOJ has obstructed the FBI at every turn in its investigations
- The State Department massaged the messages to the media in collaboration with Clinton's help
- The State Department made deals with the FBI to declassify classified Clinton emails
- CNN provided Clinton with the primary debate questions ahead of time (but not Bernie, of course)
- The DNC favored Clinton to the detriment of Bernie at every opportunity, including paying consultants to cause violence at Trump rallies but put the blame on Bernie supporters.
Yes, these are all proven facts.
Maybe, just maybe, we should stop basing politics on feelings/desires and focus on what works. But then we would be Rightist.
Not necessarily, Sweden works pretty well and I'm not sure many Americans would call them rightists.
I live in a Western country friendly to the US. The Governing party here is pretty right-wing by our standards, but would be considered dangerously communist in the US.
So much crap is going down right now.... where to even start.
There's a straw donor program that just got busted as well as a voter fraud ring in Indiana.
We have the DOJ giving the heads up which you can read here. This was forwarded by one Peter Kadzik, who you might remember as being put in charge of the reopened investigation. Conflict of interest much? Podesta says he's a "Fantastic lawyer. Kept me out of jail." His son wants to help Hillary's campaign. Plenty of other emails of them having lunch, parties, etc. together too, incidentally.
An African-American church was burned down and people are raising money to repair it.
Not really clear that there's anything here. A news organization always checks with the subject of an article before running the article-- this is standard procedure, and it's also standard procedure to correct errors of fact that are pointed out-- it is desirable to do this BEFORE an article runs.
I think they're stretching on this.
While that's certainly true, it's also misdirection. A news organization checking the subject of an article isn't the point.
It's that the government agency fielding the request gave the campaign a heads up, and took direction from the campaign about the response.
That's collusion between government and the Clinton campaign.
Are you comfortable with government agencies checking with a campaign (of their choosing) during an election?
I'm not.
Not really clear that there's anything here. A news organization always checks with the subject of an article before running the article-- this is standard procedure, and it's also standard procedure to correct errors of fact that are pointed out-- it is desirable to do this BEFORE an article runs.
I think they're stretching on this.
While that's certainly true, it's also misdirection. A news organization checking the subject of an article isn't the point.
It's that the government agency fielding the request gave the campaign a heads up, and took direction from the campaign about the response.
That's collusion between government and the Clinton campaign.
Are you comfortable with government agencies checking with a campaign (of their choosing) during an election?
I'm not.
And just to be clear, according to the Wikileaks document, this happened *after* she had left the state department and was running her campaign.
She was, at the time, a citizen with no government authority or privilege.
Please name one right wing government that currently exists that works for the people. Just one.
For values of people:
Some number of people benefit from every government's activities, although it is not necessarily a majority of them.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Switzerland. Right leaning. Of course, it's also a constitutionally restricted Federal Government, which is what the US was supposed to have...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
right here.
Call me a troll all you want, but my God, if this is the worst we can dig up on Hillary after 20 years of non-stop character assassination then she's practically Christ (Obama gets to be God, since we haven't found jack on him).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The 'alt-right' people ain't the only ones who have problems w/ Leftists
The term 'alt-right' is ambiguous right now. Is alt-right a bunch of fringe internet whackos? Or is it the 1/3rd or so of America who's on the right, but feels entirely disenfranchised by the GOP (to the point that voting for Trump seems the best alternative)?
'Alt-right' means different (if overlapping) groups depending on who you talk to, and how much they live on the internet.
There's a fairly large crowd that has a problem with "Leftists", but I would say "yes, and that's the alt-right - which is now more mainstream than the GOP".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Navy machinist Kristian Saucier took some selfies aboard ship and is in prison for it right now. Saucier didn't send the pictures to anyone. Having the classified information (pictures of the interior of the ship) on a non-secure device is a crime, and Saucier is in prison for that crime.
Clinton instructed her staff on how to send classified information "remove markings and send insecure". She intentionally instructed staff to do what Saucier did (have info on an unsecured device) AND more- also Clinton had it sent over the public internet.
1. What country do you live in?
2. What do you mean by "right-wing?"
3. If Sweden is so good why do they have so many fewer immigrants than the U.S.?
In all seriousness:
The relevant law is: 18 U.S. Code 1924
Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material (18 USC 1924) is something that Hillary would likely have been charged with if she had not been protected by her cronies. The fact is, they allowed her claim that she didn't know what she was doing was illegal to stand in as absence of a clear motive. I find it really hard to believe that someone who has spent 30 years in the Federal Government has no knowledge of Section 18 of the criminal code! David Petraeus plead guilty to that charge and got a little probation and a $100,000 fine. For one count. However, Hillary (and others on her staff) might be guilty lots and lots of instances.
She and some staffers may also be guilty of 18 USC 1623, False Declarations Before a grand jury or court--which carries up to 5 years--for lying under oath about said intent to commit the crime of removing classified documents and storing them. There is also 18 USC 1001, Fraud and False Statements which might come into play if she lied. Really, I think it's quite embarrassing as a citizen to live in a country that claims to practice justice in the court, but clearly does not. When you get passed all the political spin and commentary and drill down to the actual criminal code, it is hard to imagine a reality in which Hillary and her staff did not get convicted of SOMETHING. Let alone not even indicted! It just goes to show how deep the corruption goes.
Here's TFL (the fucking law)
18 USC 1924
18 USC 1623
18 USC 1001
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
Know a Radio Room officer who went to jail when a TS document found its way into a trash can instead of the burn bag.
HE didn't even handle the damn document. He was just the officer in charge of the space.
So, yes. The rules are quite different depending on who your friends are, who you are and how much financial influence you can wave around.
Folks go to jail for far less than what Hillary has pulled which is the biggest problem with the whole damn thing.
Why the fuck is she treated any different than anyone else ?
I hope if you ever find yourself under criminal investigation while running for office, that the investigating agency provides you with inside information advantageous to your campaign as well. Totally normal stuff.
Why the fuck is she treated any different than anyone else ?
Because she's better than your sorry asses in every way and is having the FEMA camps prepped and is distributing those hundreds of millions of rounds of hollow-point ammo the Feds have been buying up to DHS and other domestic security forces even as we speak. Keep running your mouths against Clinton and you won't make it to the camps alive. Think of your families and STFU.
Please name one left wing government that currently exists that works for the people. Just one. Heck, name ANY government that EVER existed that works for the people. The USA constitution was set up based on the inherent greed of the people in government. It put the different groups/branches/etc against each other in order to keep that lust for power in balance. Hopefully that power craving would be enhanced by serving the people/states interests, thus getting more votes from family units (and later individuals) and states. As a constitutional republic it stumbled along, not without problems--but arguably better than other models then or now. Unfortunately it wasn't set up for a party-based system, and ultimately the lust of power by the party unit overcame the checks/balances of the branches. Hence the Party protects its own (HRC is only the most visible example) to the detriment of the country as a whole. The USA is lurching towards a one party system that bypasses the constitution--and "works" for that party. Any "for the people" is accidental--and probably only a mirage. Oh., well, we kept a constitutional republic for 200+ years....Sorry, Ben.
You are going to blow the narrative!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
>"I hate a lot of the current candidates policies I like some of them but not one closely reflects my views. This is the best we could do?"
With a first-past-the-poll voting system and the electoral college, yes, that is the best we can do. It has been in the making for a long time. The only way to get real choice is to get rid of the EC and institute SOME type of instant runoff voting. Alas, it will likely never happen at this point. So we are trapped.
http://fairvote.org/
You and I have differnet definitions of the term "low":
Sweden's "low" income taxes: no taxes on first 413,200 SEK ($46,376US), 20% tax up to 591,600 SEK ($66,399US), and 25% tax on all income above 591,600 SEK ($66,399US)
Sweden's "low" investment tax is 30%
Sweden's "low" corporate taxes are 22%
Source: https://sweden.se/society/why-...
SEK to US Dollar conversion tool: http://www.likeforex.com/curre...
Ken
The alt-right is whatever the left defines it as.
Actually, the term "alt-right" comes from ... the alt-right. It is a term of self-identification, not something imposed by "the left".
I notice how people from many of the most homogeneous countries like to point fingers at the U.S. and talk about how racist we are, and how evil the people who want to stop illegal immigration can only be racist, despite the fact that this country takes on more legal immigrants than any other country in the world.... and you don't here people complaining about the legal immigrants.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
American Cap gains rate: 15%
American Corp tax rate 35%
Effective tax rate for corporate investors = 1 - ((1-CapGains)*(1-CorpTax))
Swedish effective tax to corporate investors: 45.4%
American effective tax to corporate investors: 44.75%
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You sound like the spoiled (and uneducated) brat. Trump isn't a politician, which is part of his attraction by many Americans who are sick of politicians. Pull your head out of your bum.
It certainly is about time someone broke that tradition. It's too bad that person is a total fucking idiot with no self control.
Even the New York Times which openly opposes Trump admits the FBI has looked into Russia-Putin-Trump ties and found NOTHING.
This is the same sort of big bold lie that the Democrats spread last election cycle about Romney being a tax cheat, which after the election Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) admitted was a lie but successfully helped torpedo Romney. Reid had told that lie on the Senate floor where he knew that the press would run with it but the Constitution would prevent him being prosecuted for libel or slander (he knew most Americans were too de-educated to know that he was gaming the system to fool them).
The Democrats are far better at being evil in election cycles than the feckless GOP. Every damn election cycle, Gloria Allred calls press conferences and announces that she is representing some poor young female "victim" (often multiple "victims") of a Republican and then after the election *POOF* they all scurry away never to be seen again (remember all the women she trotted out as "victims" of Herman Cain?). Keep voting for the dirtbags that the dirtbag propagandists tell you to vote for! It's been working really well, hasn't it?
I suspect there's a reason why all the super-rich in both parties and on Wall St who've been getting fat-and-happy are backing team Hillary with their money, their votes, and their activism - and there's NOTHING in it for the declining middle class or the stagnant lower class.
Calling Hilary "Leftist" is pretty ridiculous though. Maybe she is leftist in the seriously "rightist" biased US; but she is definitely at least "moderate-right" to just plain "right" from a European POV.
Which still leaves out standpoints on abortion and gay marriage, which in most European countries are well agreed upon by the "regular" right and left. Only religious conservative parties are really against it. So these are not typical "left is pro" and "right is contra" topics. Both left and right are pro, just the religious and very conservative are contra.
Defining Hilary by European standards is ridiculous when she's a player in the US political system. Here, she was Leftist long before Bernie surfaced. In 1992, when Bill Clinton was batting for the Democrat Leadership Council in trying to move the party more to the center, she was one leader of the Left leaning faction of the party, and focused on bringing Single Payer Healthcare when the party had not just the WH, but also both houses of Congress. So that was when Hilary was unplugged and a free agent, and in that mode, she was very much a Leftist. She disappeared after the 1994 debacle, and only resurfaced after the Monica affair, when public sympathy for her was sky high.
Since then, she has been as expedient as she can, knowing what being a true Leftist would bring her. Unfortunately, Leftists saw that and moved first to Obama in 2008, and Bernie in 2015. The Wiki revelations of her speech where she talked about having a public and a contradicting private stance on issues did nothing for her. So despite her being an authentic Leftist, I'll be surprised if Bernie supporters turn out en masse for her, given how much she has shed the perception that she authentically stood for anything
Here in the US, most political positions are package deals. If you're for universal healthcare, you're also for amnesty and vice versa. God forbid we accept one and reject the other.
This is why Trump is pretty important. He's rejecting certain traditional positions and accepting others.
This!!! Absolutely this! While I'm generally on the Right (forget neocon/alt-right/whatever other brand there is), there are some Democrat positions that I'm willing to not just consider, but also support. Like on Trade Deals, I'm w/ Trump, but his policy was anathema to the GOP until last year - only Pat Buchanan ever had that position. On abortion, I'm for it being legal in the first trimester, no questions asked (as long as both parents approve) but it being outlawed in the third. While that violates the NARAL orthodoxy, it also violates those pro-Lifers like Walker, Cruz, Rubio and Huckabee, who believe that it begins at conception and wouldn't allow even rape/incest exceptions. On Foreign Policy, I'm for withdrawing from the Middle East and banning Muslims. The first part is more compatible w/ the Democrat position, while the latter is not Republican - it's just Trump's position (supported by the base, but opposed by the party pooh baahs, who don't risk getting killed at random places like San Bernardino, Chattanooga, Orlando, Boston, et al)
The best example of the opposite of what you mentioned is Cruz. I understand his principles on his foreign policy, his opposition to amnesty, et al, but he then goes ahead to do a blanket embrace of all the party signature issues to make himself a purist. Like there was no reason for him to oppose the Commerce Department losing its oversight of ICANN (particularly given that he would abolish the department itself if he had his way). But there he is, opposing ICANN going 'international' just b'cos the 'US loses control of the internet' - something it doesn't have.
To use a food analogy, it's like going to a food court and picking out any combination of things you like, and going to the table. Contrast this w/ getting an assorted plate, where you get something like 6 different items, of which you may not like 2 or 3. It would be nice if we could in politics select candidates who have different viewpoints on different topics, and we then get to support the one whose combination most matches our own.
Here is a thought, Taxes are not the right of government.
It is almost like you are arguing that taxes at 45% is "fair". I call it criminal.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.