Nearly one in 10 superdelegates who voted in the Democratic presidential primaries were registered
lobbyists, according to a new report, adding some support to Bernie Sanders's claim that "the system
is rigged."
At least 63 of 712 superdelegates were registered at some point as lobbyists on the state or federal
level, according to
an analysis conducted this year by the nonpartisan, nonprofit Sunlight Foundation.
These individuals represented interests that span across big banks, healthcare insurers, the telecommunications
industry and unions, including Goldman Sachs and Planned Parenthood.
The list includes former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who is currently registered for the
healthcare insurance company Aetna, former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, a registered lobbyist
with the Gephardt Group and former DNC General Chairman and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who was
registered for Ballard Spahr LLP as recently as 2012.
Sunlight also found an additional 32 individuals it classified as "shadow lobbyists," which it
says are superdelegates who "aren't officially registered as lobbyists, but are heavily involved
in the influence industry."
This group includes the likes of former Vermont Gov. and DNC Chairman Howard Dean, who is a "senior
adviser" for Dentons, a law firm.
While the rules surrounding superdelegates for the next presidential primary will see some changes
— with Democrats agreeing to significantly reduce the number of superdelegates not bound by primary
voters — critics of superdelegate system have complained that it put the establishment in a position
to throw the 2016 Democratic nomination into Hillary Clinton's lap.
More than 600 superdelegates backed the former secretary of state, and in some cases handed her
more delegates than Sanders in states where he won a majority of the primary vote. A total of 2,383
delegates were needed to clinch the nomination.
Much of Sanders' 14-month progressive campaign to become the Democratic Party's nominee was spent
railing against a political system in which the wealthy and special interests determine the result
of the election.
"In the year 2016, with a political campaign finance system that is corrupt and increasingly controlled
by billionaires and special interests, I fear very much that, in fact, government of the people,
by the people, and for the people is beginning to perish in the United States of America," Sanders
said.
The findings of the Sunlight Foundation also show that despite a common refrain from Democrats
that Republicans are controlled by lobbyists and special interests, such as the National Rifle Association,
when it comes to delegates who are unaccountable to voters, the opposite is true. While the Republican
Party does have its own version of superdelegates, they must vote for the candidate that their state's
party members picked.
To view the Sunlight Foundation's entire list of lobbyist superdelegates,
click here.
In American politics,
a "superdelegate" is a delegate
to the Democratic
National Convention that is seated automatically and chooses for whom they want to vote. These
Democratic
Party superdelegates include distinguished party leaders and elected officials, including all
Democratic members of the House and Senate and sitting Democratic governors. Other superdelegates
are chosen during the primary season. Democratic superdelegates are free to support any candidate
for the nomination.
This contrasts with convention "pledged" delegates that are selected based on the
partyprimaries and
caucuses in each
U.S. state, in which voters
choose among candidates for the party's
presidentialnomination. Because they are
free to support anyone they want, superdelegates could potentially swing the results to nominate
a presidential candidate that did not receive the majority of votes during the primaries.
At least in name, superdelegates are not involved in the
Republican
Party nomination process. There are delegates to the
Republican
National Convention that are seated automatically, but they are limited to three per state, consisting
of the state chairsperson and two district-level committee members. Republican Party superdelegates
are obliged to vote for their state's popular vote winner under the rules of the party branch to
which they belong.[1]
Although the term superdelegate was originally coined and created to describe a type of
Democratic delegate, the term has become widely used to describe these delegates in both parties,[2]
even though it is not an official term used by either party.
... ... ...
For Democrats, superdelegates fall into two categories:
delegates seated based on other positions they hold, who are formally described (in Rule 9.A)
as "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates"[3]
(unpledged PLEO delegates); and
additional unpledged delegates selected by each state party (in a fixed predetermined number),
who are formally described (in Rule 9.B) as "unpledged add-on delegates" and who need not hold
any party or elected position before their selection as delegates.[3]
For Republicans, there are delegates in each state, consisting of the state chairman and two RNC
committee members. However, according to the RNC communications director Sean Spicer, convention
rules obligate those RNC members to vote according to the result of primary elections held in their
states.
... ... ...
Democratic Party rules distinguish pledged and unpledged delegates. Pledged delegates are selected
based on their announced preferences in the contest for the presidential nomination. In the
partyprimary elections and
caucuses in each U.S. state, voters
express their preference among the contenders for the party's nomination for
President
of the United States. Pledged delegates supporting each candidate are chosen in approximate ratio
to their candidate’s share of the vote. They fall into three categories: district-level pledged delegates
(usually by congressional
districts);[4]
at-large pledged delegates; and pledged PLEO (Party Leaders and Elected Officials) delegates.
In a minority of the states, delegates are legally required to support the candidate to whom they
are pledged.[5]
In addition to the states' requirements, the party rules state (Rule 12.J): "Delegates elected to
the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect
the sentiments of those who elected them."[3]
By contrast, the unpledged PLEO delegates (Rule 9.A) are seated without regard to their presidential
preferences, solely by virtue of being current or former elected officeholders and party officials.
Many of them have chosen to announce endorsements, but they are not bound in any way. They may
support any candidate they wish, including one who has dropped out of the presidential race.[6]
The other superdelegates, the unpledged add-on delegates (Rule 9.B), who need not be PLEOs, are selected
by the state parties after some of the pledged delegates are chosen,[3]
but they resemble the unpledged PLEO delegates in being free to vote as they wish.
... ... ...
At the
2008
Democratic National Convention, superdelegates cast approximately 823.5 votes, with fractions
arising because superdelegates from
Michigan,
Florida, and
Democrats Abroad are
entitled to half a vote each. Of the superdelegates' votes, 745 are from unpledged PLEO delegates
and 78.5 are from unpledged add-on delegates, although the exact number in each category is subject
to events.
Please note that Hillary's path to the top was marked by proved beyond reasonable doubt DNC fraud.
With information contained in recent email leaks some DNC honchos probably might go to jail for
violation of elections laws. So for them this is a death match and people usually fight well when
they are against the wall. The same in true about Obama and his entourage.
And while this Nobel Peace Price winner managed to bomb just eight countries, Hillary might
improve this peace effort, which was definitely insufficient from the point of view of many diplomats
in State Department. Also the number of humanitarian bombs could be much greater. Here Hillary
election can really help.
From the other point of view this might well be a sign of the crisis of legitimacy of the US
ruling neoliberal elite (aka financial oligarchy).
After approximately 50 years in power the level of degeneration of the US neoliberal elite
reached the level when the quality of candidates reminds me the quality of candidates from the
USSR Politburo after Brezhnev death. Health-wise Hillary really bear some resemblance to Andropov
and Chernenko. And inability of the elite to replace either of them with a more viable candidate
speaks volumes.
The other factor that will not go away is that Obama effectively pardoned Hillary for emailgate
(after gentle encouragement from Bill via Loretta Lynch). Otherwise instead of candidate to POTUS,
she would be a viable candidate for orange suit too. Sure, the rule of law is not applicable to
neoliberal elite, so why Hilary should be an exception? But some naive schmucks might think that
this is highly improper. And be way too much upset with the fruits of neoliberal globalization.
Not that Brexit is easily repeatable in the USA, but vote against neoliberal globalization (protest
vote) might play a role.
Another interesting thing to observe is when (and if) the impeachment process starts, if she
is elected. With some FBI materials in hands of the Congress Republicans she in on the hook. A
simple majority of those present and voting is required for each article of impeachment, or the
resolution as a whole, to pass.
All-in-all her win might well be a Pyrrhic victory. And the unknown neurological disease that
she has (Parkinson?) makes her even more vulnerable after the election, then before. The role
of POTUS involves a lot of stress and requires substantial physical stamina as POTUS is the center
of intersection of all important government conflicts, conversations and communications. That's
a killing environment for anyone with Parkinson. And remember she was not able to survive the
pressure of the role of the Secretary of State when she was in much better health and has an earlier
stage of the disease.
Another interesting question, if the leaks continue after the election. That also can contribute
to the level of stress. Just anticipation is highly stressful. I do not buy the theory about "evil
Russians." This hypothesis does not survive Occam razor test. I think that there some anti-Hillary
forces within the USA ruling elite, possibly within the NSA or some other three letter agency
that has access to email boxes of major Web mail providers via NSA.
If this is a plausible hypothesis, that makes it more probable that the leaks continue. To
say nothing about possible damaging revelations about Bill (especially related to Clinton Foundation),
who really enjoyed his retirement way too much.
Those who vote for Hillary for the sake of stability need to be reminded that according to
the Minsky Theory stability sometimes can be very destabilizing
When Krugman is appointed to a top government post by Hillary Clinton we will be able to FOIA
his pay and attach a value to all the columns "electioneering" Krugman has written.
likbez -> anne...
Anne,
"An intolerably destructive essay that should never have been posted, and I assume no
such essay will be posted again on this blog. Shameful, shameful essay."
You mean that voting for the female warmonger with some psychopathic tendencies ("We came,
we saw, he died") is not shameful ?
An interesting approach I would say.
I am not fun of Trump, but he, at least, does not have the blood of innocent women and children
on his hands. And less likely to start WWIII unlike this completely out of control warmonger.
With the number of victims of wars of neoliberal empire expansion in Iraq, Libya and Syria,
you should be ashamed of yourself as a women.
Please think about your current position Anne. You really should be ashamed.
Washington forgot his role in color revolutions in Ukraine, Russia, Serbia and other countries,
when Washington controlled neoliberal media served as air support for local fifth column. Now
boomerang returned...
On Tuesday, the Foreign Ministry of Ecuador confirmed WikiLeaks' charge that Ecuador itself
had ordered the severing of Assange's Internet connection under pressure from the US government.
In a statement, the ministry said that WikiLeaks had "published a wealth of documents impacting
on the US election campaign," adding that the government of Ecuador "respects the principle of
non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states" and "does not interfere in external
electoral processes." On that grounds, the statement claimed, the Ecuadorian government decided
to "restrict access" to the communications network at its London embassy.
"... Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot of Syrians" - all for humanitarian reasons of course. ..."
"... While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia , which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region. ..."
"... Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis provided as much , and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that U.S. allies are financing the radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq. ..."
Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary
Clinton speeches and emails
from her campaign chair John Podesta.
Clinton in a 2013 speech to the Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner (via
The Intercept ):
[Arming moderates has] been complicated by the fact that the Saudis and others are shipping large
amounts of weapons-and pretty indiscriminately-not at all targeted toward the people that we think
would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future, ...
Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot
of Syrians" - all for humanitarian reasons of course.
The following was written by Podesta, a well connected former White House Chief of Staff, in an
2014 email to Clinton.
As introduction Podesta notes: "Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources
in the region.":
While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic
and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi
Arabia , which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical
Sunni groups in the region.
Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis
provided as much , and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that
U.S. allies are financing the radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq.
In the latest, 13th daily Podesta email release,
one particular email
sticks out : on February 2, 2016 Neera Tanden, a close confidante of Hillary Clinton and according
to many one of the key organizers of her presidential campaign asks John Podesta a question which
may be interpreted that banker money received by Hillary can be deemed equivalent to a bribe.
Specifically, Tanden asks Podesta that " speaking at the banks... don't shoot me but if
we lose badly maybe she should just return the money ." To which she then adds "say she
gets the anger and moves on. Feels a little like an open wound."
The exchange may be one of the more clear indications of a tentative "quid-pro-quo" arrangement,
in which cash is provided in exchange for 'services' which naturally would not be rendered if Hillary
were to "lose badly."
Luckily for Tanden and Podesta, not to mention Hillary, at least according to the latest scientific
polls, losing badly is not a contingency that should be a major consideration, at least not as of
this moment.
"... Among the initial emails to stand out is this extensive exchange showing just how intimiately the narrative of Hillary's server had been coached. The following September 2015 email exchange between Podesta and Nick Merrill, framed the "core language" to be used in response to questions Clinton could be asked about her email server, and the decision to "bleach" emails from it. The emails contain long and short versions of responses for Clinton. ..."
The daily dump continues. In the now traditional daily routine, one which forces the Clinton campaign
to resort to ever more stark sexual scandals involving Trump to provide a media distraction, moments
ago Wikileaks released yet another 1,803 emails in Part 12 of its ongoing Podesta Email dump, which
brings the total number of released emails to 18,953.
As a reminder among the most recent revelations we got further insights into Hillary's desire
to see Obamacare "
unravel" , her contempt for "doofus" Bernie Sanders, staff exchanges on handling media queries
about Clinton "flip-flopping" on gay marriage, galvanizing Latino support and locking down Clinton's
healthcare policy. Just as notable has been the ongoing revelation of just how "captured" the so-called
independent press has been in its "off the record" discussions with John Podesta which got the head
Politico correspondent, Glenn Thrush, to admit he is a "hack" for allowing Podesta to dictate the
content of his article.
The release comes on the day of the third and final presidential campaign between Hillary Clinton
and Donald Trump, and as a result we are confident it will be scrutinized especially carefully for
any last minute clues that would allow Trump to lob a much needed Hail Mary to boost his standing
in the polls.
As there is a total of 50,000 emails, Wikileaks will keep the media busy over the next three weeks
until the elections with another 30,000 emails still expected to be released.
* * *
Among the initial emails to stand out is this extensive exchange showing just how intimiately
the narrative of Hillary's server had been coached. The
following September
2015 email exchange between Podesta and Nick Merrill, framed the "core language" to be used in
response to questions Clinton could be asked about her email server, and the decision to "bleach"
emails from it. The emails contain long and short versions of responses for Clinton.
"Because the government already had everything that was work-related, and my personal emails
were just that – personal – I didn't see a reason to keep them so I asked that they be deleted,
and that's what the company that managed my server did. And we notified Congress of that back
in March"
She was then presented with the following hypothetical scenario:
* "Why won't you say whether you wiped it?"
"After we went through the process to determine what was work related and what was
not and provided the work related emails to State, I decided not to keep the personal ones."
"We saved the work-related ones on a thumb drive that is now with the Department of Justice.
And as I said in March, I chose not to keep the personal ones. I asked that they be deleted, how
that happened was up to the company that managed the server. And they are cooperating fully with
anyone that has questions."
* * *
Another notable
email reveals the close relationship between the Clinton Foundation and Ukraine billionaire Victor
Pinchuk, a
prominent donor to the Clinton Foundation , in which we see the latter's attempt to get a meeting
with Bill Clinton to show support for Ukraine:
From: Tina Flournoy < [email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 9:58:55 AM
To: Amitabh Desai
Cc: Jon Davidson; Margaret Steenburg; Jake Sullivan; Dan Schwerin; Huma Abedin; John Podesta
Subject: Re: Victor Pinchuk
Team HRC - we'll get back to you on this
> On Mar 30, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Amitabh Desai < [email protected]> wrote:
>
> Victor Pinchuk is relentlessly following up (including this morning) about a meeting with WJC
in London or anywhere in Europe. Ideally he wants to bring together a few western leaders to show
support for Ukraine, with WJC probably their most important participant. If that's not palatable
for us, then he'd like a bilat with WJC.
>
> If it's not next week, that's fine, but he wants a date. I keep saying we have no Europe plans,
although we do have those events in London in June. Are folks comfortable offering Victor
a private meeting on one of those dates? At this point I get the impression that although I keep
saying WJC cares about Ukraine, Pinchuk feels like WJC hasn't taken enough action to demonstrate
that, particularly during this existential moment for the county and for him.
>
> I sense this is so important because Pinchuk is under Putin's heel right now, feeling a great
degree of pressure and pain for his many years of nurturing stronger ties with the West.
>
> I get all the downsides and share the concerns. I am happy to go back and say no.
It would just be good to know what WJC (and HRC and you all) would like to do, because
this will likely impact the future of this relationship, and slow walking our reply will only
reinforce his growing angst.
>
> Thanks, and sorry for the glum note on a Monday morning...
Sure. Sorry for the delay I was on a plane.
On Apr 30, 2015 9:44 AM, "Glenn Thrush" <
[email protected]>
wrote:
> Can I send u a couple of grafs, OTR, to make sure I'm not fucking
> anything up?
* * *
Another notable moment emerges in the emails, involving Hillary Clinton's selective memory. Clinton's
description of herself as a moderate Democrat at a September 2015 event in Ohio caused an uproar
amongst her team. In a
mail from Clinton
advisor Neera Tanden to Podesta in the days following the comment she asks why she said this.
"I pushed her on this on Sunday night. She claims she didn't remember saying it. Not sure I
believe her," Podesta replies. Tanden insists that the comment has made her job more difficult
after "telling every reporter I know she's actually progressive". " It worries me more
that she doesn't seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment ," she adds.
* * *
We also get additional insight into Clinton courting the Latino minority. A November 2008
email from Federico
Peña , who was on the Obama-Biden transition team, called for a "Latino media person" to be added
to the list of staff to appeal to Latino voters. Federico de Jesus or Vince Casillas are seen as
ideal candidates, both of whom were working in the Chicago operations.
"More importantly, it would helpful (sic) to Barack to do pro-active outreach to Latino media
across the country to get our positive message out before people start spreading negative rumors,"
Peña writes.
* * *
Another email between
Clinton's foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan and Tanden from March 2016 discussed how it was
"REALLY dicey territory" for Clinton to comment on strengthening "bribery laws to ensure that politicians
don't change legislation for political donations." Tanden agrees with Sullivan:
" She may be so tainted she's really vulnerable - if so, maybe a message of
I've seen how this sausage is made, it needs to stop, I'm going to stop it will actually work."
* * *
One email suggested,
sarcastically, to kneecap bernie Sanders : Clinton's team issued advise regarding her tactics
for the "make or break" Democratic presidential debate with Sanders in Milwaukee on February 11,
2016. The mail to Podesta came from Philip Munger, a Democratic Party donor. He sent the mail using
an encrypted anonymous email service.
"She's going to have to kneecap him. She is going to have to take him down from his morally
superior perch. She has done so tentatively. She must go further," he says.
Clearly, the desire to get Sanders' supporters was a key imperative for the Clinton campaign.
In a September 2015
email to Podesta , Hill columnist Brent Budowsky criticized the campaign for allegedly giving
Clinton surrogates talking points to attack Bernie Sanders. "I cannot think of anything more stupid
and self-destructive for a campaign to do," he says. "Especially for a candidate who has dangerously
low levels of public trust," and in light of Sanders' campaign being based on "cleaning up politics."
Budowsky warns voters would be "disgusted" by attacks against Sanders and says he wouldn't discourage
Podesta from sharing the note with Clinton because "if she wants to become president she needs to
understand the point I am making with crystal clarity."
"Make love to Bernie and his idealistic supporters, and co-opt as many of his progressive issues
as possible."
Budowsky then adds that he was at a Washington university where " not one student gave
enough of a damn for Hillary to open a booth, or even wear a Hillary button. "
* * *
One email focused
on how to address with the topic of the TPP. National Policy Director for Hillary for America
Amanda Renteria explains, "The goal here was to minimize our vulnerability to the authenticity attack
and not piss off the WH any more than necessary."
Democratic pollster Joel Benenson says, "the reality is HRC is more pro trade than anti and
trying to turn her into something she is not could reinforce our negative [sic] around authenticity.
This is an agreement that she pushed for and largely advocated for."
* * *
While claiming she is part of the people, an email exposes Hillary as being "
part of the system
." Clinton's team acknowledges she is "part of the system" in an email regarding her strategies.
As Stan Greenberg told Podesta:
" We are also going to test some messages that include acknowledgement of being part
of the system, and know how much has to change ,"
* * *
Some more on the topic of Hillary being extensively coached and all her words rehearsed, we find
an email which reveals that
Clinton's words
have to be tightly managed by her team who are wary of what she might say. After the Iowa Democratic
Party's presidential debate in November 2015 adviser Ron Klain mails Podesta to say, "If she says
something three times as an aside during practice (Wall Street supports me due to 9/11), we need
to assume she will say it in the debate, and tell her not to do so." Klain's mail reveals Sanders
was their biggest fear in the debate. "The only thing that would have been awful – a Sanders break
out – didn't happen. So all in all, we were fine," he says.
The mail also reveals Klain's role in securing his daughter Hannah a position on Clinton's team.
"I'm not asking anyone to make a job, or put her in some place where she isn't wanted – it just needs
a nudge over the finish line," Klain says. Hannah Klain worked on Clinton's Surrogates team for nine
months commencing in the month after her father's mail to Podesta, according to her Linkedin.
I love this...Assange is incommunicado, yet the data dumps keep coming!
Horse face looks like such a fool to the world as a result; & due to John Kerry's stupidity which
is drawing major attention to the whole matter; Americans are finally beginning to wake up & pay
attention to this shit!
Looks like the Hitlery for Prez ship is starting to take on MASSIVE amounts of water!
I believe they are beyond the point where any more news of 'pussy grabbing' will save them
from themselves (and Mr. Assange)!
The new lowered expectations federal government just expects to get lucre + bennies for sitting
on their asses and holding the door for gangsters. Traitors. Spies. Enemies foreign and domestic.
Amphisbaegenic pot boiling.
With Creamer's tricks effective in Obama's re-election, it now makes sense why Obama was so
confident when he said Trump would never be president.
Trump is still ahead in the only poll I track. But i conduct my own personal poll on a daily
basis and loads of Trump supporters are in the closet and won't come out until they pull the lever
for Trump on election day.
The
DailyKos
put out a report on Oct. 17 that
WikiLeaks describes as a "smear campaign plot to falsely accuse Julian Assange of
pedophilia."
"An unknown entity posing as an internet dating agency prepared an
elaborate plot to falsely claim that Julian Assange received US$1M from the Russian
government and a second plot to frame him sexually molesting an eight year old girl,"
WikiLeaks said in a
press release
Tuesday.
The press release went on: "The second plot includes the filing of a fabricated
criminal complaint in the Bahamas, a court complaint in the UK and laundering part of
the attack through the United Nations. The plot happened durring WikiLeaks' Hillary
Clinton related publications, but the plot may have its first genesis in Mr. Assange's
16 months litigation against the UK in the UN system, which concluded February 5 (Assange
won. UK and Sweden lost & US State Dept tried to pressure the WGAD according to its
former Chair, Prof. Mads Andenas)."
The DailyKos reported that a Canadian family holidaying in the Bahamas reported to
the police that their 8-year-old daughter was "sexually molested online" by Assange on
Toddandclare.com.
Julian Assange's legal team provided a timeline in the press release which showed
that the self-claimed dating agency ToddAndClare.com contacted WikiLeaks' defense
team offering one million dollars for Assange to appear in a video advertisement for the
"dating agency".
Assange's defense wrote back, stating that the proposal appeared to be an "elaborate
scam designed to entrap Mr. Assange's reputation into unwanted and unwarranted
publicity."
WikiLeaks was able to trace down the address of the front, posting an image on
twitter of what appears to be a warehouse or garage.
Here is the "headquarters" of the front (PAC?) behind the
Assange "took US$1M from Russia" plot
Internet sleuths from Reddit were able to dig up some information about the dating
service pushing the attacks on Assange, finding that the company shares the address with
a private intelligence corporation named Premise Data Corporation.
Here is the Reddit post that lays out the findings:
As other Redditors point out,
the Center for American Progress was founded by
Clinton campaign chair John Podesta and was funded by billionaire and pro-Clintonite
George Soros.
As one Redditor so laughably put it, "If this was merely a coincidence, then I'm the
queen of England."
As
we reported yesterday
, Fox News had told its audience Tuesday morning that Assange
would be arrested "maybe in a matter of hours," leading to the speculation that there
could have been a plot to arrest Assange over the pedophilia accusations.
WOW! Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein is on fire! After previously blasting Hillary
Clinton, accusing her of basically being a scary psychopath who "would start World War 3 with
Russia", Jill is now warning liberal progressives not to throw away their vote by supporting
corporatist Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton because she is a "two faced public and private
position, corporatist who takes Wall Street special interest big donor money, traitor who would
betray you, a crook who controls the media, a monster and your votes would be wasted on her" in
what is basically a summary of what Jill Stein said.
"Don't waste your vote on corporate Democrats. #InvestYourVote," Stein wrote on Twitter on
Wednesday:
"If Trump's campaign is flailing, does a "spoiler" vote even exist anymore? Don't waste your vote
on corporate Democrats."
Stein then retweeted a statement from the Green Party's official Twitter account which read,
"It's time to #InvestYourVote in building a people's party – not waste your vote on corporate
party candidates that continue to betray you."
"Unlike the Democrats and Republicans, we don't cuddle up to Wall Street and special interests
with our 'public' and 'private' positions," Stein added in a separate tweet, referring to the
recent WikiLeaks revelation that Hillary Clinton said that politicians need to have "both a
public and private position" on every issue:
"Unlike the Democrats and Republicans, we don't cuddle up to Wall Street and special interests
with our "public" and "private" positions."
she's right the Republicans are in the same boat! People like Paul Ryan, John McCain, there's
no doubt about it, they are just as corrupt as the Democrats. Its only Donald Trump himself who
is not bound to any Wall Street special interests and who doesn't accept donations from big
banks, but other Republicans are just as corrupt as your average Democrats. That's why GOP elites
are not endorsing Trump. Trump himself is also at war with the GOP establishment.
Stein observed that "corporations were originally chartered to serve the public good, but they've
become monsters that dominate our government."
Stein has previously explained that the liberal progressive agenda–on health care, crime, climate
change, trade, etc.– cannot be accomplished under a corporatist like Hillary Clinton. Stein
argued that a Clinton presidency will simply be the continuation of the policies supported by
Washington's "uniparty," which is controlled by special interest donors–and will not in any way
advance the goals of liberal progressives.
Seeming to borrow Trump's moniker for Clinton, Stein also attacked DNC chair Donna Brazile for
her "crooked" behavior– providing Clinton's campaign with a question in advance for a town hall
as Clinton was trying to defeat Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary:
"Invest your vote in a movement party, not in more crooked behavior from the Democrats!
PodestaEmails4 http://thehill.com/media/300427-emails-donna-brazile-gave-town-hall-questions-to-clinton-camp-in-advance
"
Stein is a Harvard Medical School graduate, a mother to two sons, and a practicing physician, who
became an environmental-health activist and organizer in the late 1990s. As the Green Party's
2012 presidential candidate, Stein holds the record for the most votes ever received by a female
candidate for president in a general election.
While third party Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson has received quite a bit of media attention
throughout this election, Stein said that she has experienced a virtual media blackout. Stein
urged supporters to help her "#BreakTheBlackout from corporate media."
Stein suggested that the reason for the media blackout stems is because she is an effective
messenger against Washington's "uniparty."
"I debated @MittRomney in 2002 and was declared the winner by viewers. After that they locked me
out of the debates," Stein tweeted. "The Democratic and Republican candidates + @GovGaryJohnson
refuse to debate me because they're scared. #OccupyTheDebate":
"Help us #BreakTheBlackout from corporate media – go to http://Jill2016.com and sign up to join
our team! #GreenTownHall"
WOW! Her anti-Hillary rants have been really strong lately! Its nice to finally see someone else
take on the crooked Democrats with such anger. Seeing Trump doing all the ranting all by himself
is really nice but now its even better. Perhaps the two should meet and discuss some sort of
alliance. Jill Stein could be an effective messenger to the Bernie voters. Perhaps Trump could
make her the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency or something, since she's
Green.
In exchange Jill should of course drop out and ask her 2% voter base to vote Trump. She should
also keep bashing the Democrats and target Bernie Sanders's people to vote Trump. Wouldn't be
such a bad idea, wouldn't it??
Donald Trump's solid core of support comes from white working-class America. As the
blue-collar voter has become central to the political conversation, a clear picture of who we're
talking about has emerged: He's likely male and disillusioned with the economy and loss of
industry. He's a coal miner that's been
laid off in Hazard, Kentucky, and is scraping by off his wife's income; a machinists' union
member in a Pennsylvania steel town who
says "a guy like Donald Trump, he's pushing for change." Through the campaign, we've seen
endless portraits of Trump support in the heart of
Appalachian coal country, and a recent spate of books documents
white working-class alienation and the history of the
white underclass in America. Trump's iron grip on the support of blue-collar white Americans
has been one of the most striking threads of his unprecedented campaign.
... ... ...
...Thomas Frank, who recently published
Listen, Liberal, about the Democratic Party's abandonment of the working class and
Robert Reich, public policy professor at the University of California at Berkeley and former
secretary of labor in the Clinton administration. They
both have outlined a
series of Democratic moves to elevate free trade and an inability to defend unions as proof that
Democrats created a platform that left no room for the white working class.
Marginalized for years without working-class candidates or elected officials, "the white
working class found their voice in Trump," says Justin Gest, assistant professor of public policy
at George Mason University and author of The New Minority: White Working Class Politics in an
Age of Immigration and Inequality. "He speaks directly to conspiracy, frustration and a sense
of powerlessness, and they're grateful he speaks to them." Trump, too, has worked hard to burnish
his working-class cred,
telling a crowd in Pennsylvania on Tuesday that he considers himself "in a certain way to be
a blue-collar worker."
...In terms of the economy, white working-class women also differ from their male
counterparts. While manufacturing concerns and the white working class may be linked in our
cultural narrative (especially in Trump's campaign), the women were focused on different economic
concerns-in particular, the cost of higher education and preschooling.
.... Single women tend to lean to the left,and in recent years white working-class
marriage rates have fallen more sharply than those of their more educated and affluent
counterparts, who are more likely to delay marriage than not get married at all, according to
FiveThirtyEight's
analysis of
Census data. (Roughly 45 percent of white working-class women are unmarried, according to
GQRR's Nancy Zdunkewicz). In a June/July national survey by GQRR, white working-class womenput Trump 23 points ahead of Clinton in a three-way ballot, but when you looked at only
unmarried white non-college-educated women, that gap was only 11 percent-a preview, if current
trends continue, of a gap likely to grow in the future.
..For Democrats hoping to capitalize on this group, it's not obvious they can just
swoop in and grab alienated women. For one thing, white working-class women don't necessarily
trust Hillary Clinton any more than men do.
,,,For now, though, if Democrats continue bleeding white working-class men and women, the
party's white base will be mostly highly educated and white collar, a perhaps uncomfortable shift
for the so-called party of the people
Julia Sonenshein is California-born writer and editor living in New York City. Her work
focuses on social-political issues like reproductive rights, American gun culture and
intersectional feminism.
Oct 12, 2016 3:00 AM
0
SHARES
Unlike Reuters' political "reporters"
, it seems the hacker collective
"Anonymous"
is less impressed by Hillary Clinton's awesomeness. Following
Wikileaks' recent release of leaks, Anonymous reminds Americans of the 'career criminal'
in a
video containing a well researched list of wrong-doings, exposing the
actions of Hillary over her career
.
This includes things like:
fraud investigations
conflicts of interest
political corruption
wrongful pardons
campaign and finance law violations
business & political scandals
This is only a small list of what is explored in the video below...
With so much exposed already, why do we continue to follow, allow, and
accept people like Hillary and Trump as potentials to be country leaders?
Truly think about it. Can we even take a system that puts these two so high up in the
ranks seriously?
Is this not the perfect storm to allow us to wake up to the reality of
our current state?
We should be thankful that this is going on so we can
help wake up the world and begin a conversation about what we can legitimately do next.
This isn't about Trump vs Clinton.
That is merely the illusion we
are being invited to believe. This is about awakening to the fact that our system is
absurd and that it's time to do something different. What is the answer? That is what we
must discuss instead of playing this broken political game of dividing and choosing who
to "vote" for.
Occident Mortal
Kidbuck
Oct 12, 2016 3:41 AM
Any journalist should feel enormous professional humilation and deep
personal shame at the fact a bunch of teenagers are offering more scrutiny
on this presidential candidate than the entire press industry.
Guided and also manufactured to a great degree by an MSM-fabricated
matrix of misinformation at the behest of the fuckers pulling the
strings. The disinterest in the morals of policy and action and their
effect on millions of people both at home and abroad is quite
jaw-dropping, and a sad reflection on how low society (not just in the
US) has fallen.
However Brexit proved all hope is not lost and sheeple can develop
an awareness (probaly as a result of the intimidating bullshit they were
being fed).
I wish you could say that was happening. I just don't see
it at all. I see things getting worse, and it's this
"business" mentality that is sucking the rest of us all down
beneath the waves to drown.
I tend to agree.
Though just personal anecdote, in my career, I've seen this
'business mentality' at work, and it can be ugly.
For instance, I was in the room, to hear the CFO and COO
discuss how to 'reach the numbers' so that the COO would get his
bonus. The decision in this case was to rid 100+ employees,
many with decades of experience and accumulated skillsets, to
reduce costs, hit the 'correct' bottom line for a quarter or
two, and voila! Company 'hit the numbers' and COO gets his
bonus...in addition to the already lucrative salary, well beyond
what most would 'need'. Within a week of the bonus, he drives
up in a flashy, new, red sportscar. Should have witnessed the
rage many of the remaining, spared employees that had watched
their friends/coworkers get axed and still remain unemployed;
there were literally conversations about lighting that car on
fire in the parking lot.
There were similar decisions to gobble up local and other
national competitor shops. Some were immediately shut down and
everyone axed, but some with more glowing numbers that could be
used to pad forecasts, were kept on for a short while. After
saddling the company with immense debt to cover the
acquisitions, boosting the sales and forecast figures 'on paper'
for the foreseeable near future, he penned himself a nice, shiny
résumé about 'increasing sales 4x in just a year' landed himself
a different COO job in California and left. Soon thereafter,
when the weight of everything crashed down (scarce employees,
with little skill left to efficiently accomplish a quality
product...both measures suffering/declining), those acquisitions
were shut down and the original company is now scarcely a shadow
of what it was, thereby causing more layoffs and terminations.
Now the $150 million +/year company, with 900 employees, is a
$10 million/year company, with 200 employees.
But that COO? He's living it up in CA, several companies
later, and my periodic checkup on the 'net shows he's done
similarly a few more times, yet entrenched in the network of
corporate boards/COOs that still perpetuate this scheme.
Contrary to 'building' anything, they construct a false
narrative and tear everyone down in the process. But he and his
cohorts get rich.
No, not everyone at that level does this, but the incentives
are such that it is very tempting to follow suit and a review of
corporate history in this nation shows it is/was quite typical
over many decades...because it works for those that engage this
behavior.
Sound familiar to U.S. policy abroad?
michelp
luckylongshot
Oct 12, 2016 10:37 AM
"The answer is to start studying what it takes to apply power
productively and use the findings to select and train appropriate
leaders."
Sorry but! In the currupt USA run by zio and war machines any
'appropriate leader' is DOA (Dead on Arrival.)
Donald J. Trump
tbd108
Oct 12, 2016 3:58 AM
As I'm sure there are some that put Ttump on a high horse, I think most
Trump supporters are supporting him because of the exact reason they are fed
up with system as aanonymous says. Trump is a big middle finger to the
status quo of Washington politics. I for one hope he does as he says he
will do to hopefully right the ship of the US. He may even sink the ship
but it's going down already, he's our only chance to right it. What he's
done takes a certain level of celebrity, balls, and money, and I can't think
of another person who could do what he has done. As great a cure Trump may
be for our country, there are some side effects so talk to your doctor to
see if Trump is right for you. Dial 1(844)LIB-TARD or (855)LIB-TARD for a
free sample of Trump.
Btw- those phone numbers are available if someone
could actually make a good use for it. I'm also interested if the other
exchanges that are already taken have anything to with libtards.
I am surprised that Trump is not making the Podesta Wikileaks into a major story. Perhaps Trump
is not earnestly trying to actually win, or Trump is a Bush43/Palin level low IQ person.
Trump & his media spokeshacks could repeat "Podesta Wikileaks show HClinton's actual 'private
position' is cut SS & MC, & pro-TPP. Trump will not cut SS & MC, & will veto TPP. Vote for Trump".
Even if Trump is lying, Trump could "pull an 0bama 2008 on NAFTA" & privately tell PRyan/Trump
BigFunders/Owners Trump's actual plan.
IMHO Trump could possibly win if he took such an approach. Why isn't he doing so?
(Busy with nurturing some illness, please bear with me.)
Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary
Clinton
speeches
and
emails
from her campaign chair
John Podesta.
Clinton in a 2013 speech to the Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner (via
The Intercept
):
[Arming moderates has] been complicated by the fact that the Saudis and others are shipping large
amounts of weapons-and pretty indiscriminately-not at all targeted toward the people that we
think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future, ...
Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot of
Syrians" - all for humanitarian reasons of course.
The following was written by Podesta, a well connected former White House Chief of Staff, in an
2014
email
to Clinton. As
introduction Podesta notes:"Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the
region.":
While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and
more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of
Qatar and
Saudi Arabia
, which are providing clandestine
financial and logistic support to
ISIL
and other radical Sunni groups in the region.
Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis
provided as much
, and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that
U.S. allies are financing the radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq.
"... Stated Binney: "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA. Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails." ..."
"... "Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there." ..."
"... And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails. ..."
"... GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). ..."
Binney also proclaimed that the NSA has all of Clinton's deleted emails, and the FBI could gain access
to them if they so wished. No need for Trump to ask the Russians for those emails, he can
just call on the FBI or NSA to hand them over.
Binney referenced
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert
S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to
track down known and suspected terrorists."
Stated Binney: "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the
NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows
a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA. Which there is no oversight of by
the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those
emails."
"So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right
now," he stated of Clinton's emails as well as DNC emails.
Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of "all" of Clinton's emails, including
the deleted correspondence, Binney replied in the affirmative.
"Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can
get them right there."
Binney surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the
U.S. intelligence community angry over Clinton's compromise of national security data with her
email use.
And the other point is that Hillary, according to an
article
published by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised
Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of
NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that.
She lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct
compromise of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there
are many people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look
at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails.
The Observer defined the GAMMA classification:
GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive
information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was).
Over a year before Edward Snowden shocked the world in the summer of 2013 with revelations
that have since changed everything from domestic to foreign US policy but most of all, provided
everyone a glimpse into just what the NSA truly does on a daily basis, a former NSA staffer, and
now famous whistleblower, William Binney, gave excruciating detail to Wired magazine about all
that Snowden would substantiate the following summer.
We covered it in a 2012 post titled "
We Are This Far From A Turnkey Totalitarian State" – Big Brother Goes Live September 2013."
Not surprisingly, Binney received little attention in 2012 – his suggestions at the time were
seen as preposterous and ridiculously conspiratorial. Only after the fact, did it become obvious
that he was right. More importantly, in the aftermath of the Snowden revelations, what
Binney has to say has become gospel.
Binney was an architect of the NSA's surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower
when he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency. He referenced
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller
in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down
known and suspected terrorists."
"... "You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising money for your campaign." ..."
"... "How DARE you not give our Crown Princess the respect she deserves!" ..."
"... financially squeeze those not with status quo… guess they object to woman patriots that want to serve "all the people"??…..telling ..."
"For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments,
doesn't fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party's
nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful
to Hillary Clinton."
"You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise
money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising money for your campaign."
I sort of enjoy the typo in Podesta's intro to the forward, if not the sentiment aka gloating
that a couple of CAA agents decided to punish Gabbard for supporting the better candidate. I mean
they are clearly a couple of pigs.
"... For example, IMO now that we have in writing that Hillary has 2 positions on issues (a public and private position) it is 100% fair that debate moderators and the media ask Clinton aggressively which position she is giving in her responses – her public or private position? ..."
"... If the media won't focus on the public/private position issue (and Obama did the same in 2008 regarding NAFTA, I recall), then Trump can force them to by putting that front and center in the debate. ..."
Not surprised, no. But IMO has definite implications.
For example, IMO now that we have in writing that Hillary has 2 positions on issues (a public
and private position) it is 100% fair that debate moderators and the media ask Clinton aggressively
which position she is giving in her responses – her public or private position?
Won't happen with our media, but IMO this should now be standard operating procedure for the media
with regard to Hillary and would be completely fair, prudent, and necessary to inform the public
and voters.
The debate is setting up to be the mother of all debates.
If the media won't focus on the public/private position issue (and Obama did the same in 2008
regarding NAFTA, I recall), then Trump can force them to by putting that front and center in the
debate.
"... It's an election for and among the ruling class. ..."
"... Scott Adams who has been right so far says Trump still has a clear path to victory. The media is just trying to blackpill everyone. Why should we believe them? They are saying Trump can't win because they said he can't win. ..."
"... Somehow Clinton bragging about getting a pedophile off the hook is OK? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCDzRtZLUkc CLinton will start WW III. Trump may do so. What a choice. ..."
"... For nearly a generation now there have been decent candidates for US president who would, to a greater or lesser degree, have opposed our increasingly corrupt and violent oligarchy. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, Jill Stein, Rick Santorum ... and many more you haven't heard of. The elites have perfected a system of taking them down, with no messy assassination. Ridicule them in the press, don't cover their positions, just their style, find a flaw or mis-statement and hammer hammer hammer until people believe that they are ridiculous, then ban them from the media. ..."
"... now the establishment is doubling down on the only thing it knows how to do. They are 'reporting' that Trump is finished. ..."
"... Donald Trump has said unfortunate off-the-cuff things. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, has actually DONE some things so crazy that if I wrote her up as a character in a work of fiction my editor would reject it as unbelievable. ..."
"... The Podesta e-mails show Killary in her true colors (see b.) The few I read though were unsurprising and boring, because she is mentally challenged, as is her staff, they are in a bubble. The leaks re. her speeches to Banksters ditto, and anyway the speeches are immaterial, they are just empty, fakelorum, performances carried out to legitimise bribery in a completely corrupt circuit. ..."
"... I concur with the very first post...it will be a Trump landslide. The silent majority- the plurality of voters who are neither D nor R. We have no voice in politics and no voice in the media. We already see through the lies and the hypocracy. That is Trumps target audience. Even if it is just a show at least Trump talks about policies ..."
"... Trump and his supporters must henceforth be more vigilant and pull no punches in exposing the Clintons' perfidy. ..."
"... And on other fronts - the Vice News vid I just watched was titled 'the US/Russia Proxy War in Ukraine'. I was shocked. Their prior coverage was 200% neocon blather. (Aka Simon Otrovsky IIRc) Could it be a beginning of a revolt by the MSM? If CNN begins to refer to Syria and Ukraine as proxy wars, it means the Empire's control of MSM is slipping. And that would spell the end for them. ..."
"... "This is a very dangerous game given that Russia, being in Syria at the invitation of the legitimate government of this country and having two bases there, has got air defense systems there to protect its assets," Lavrov said, according to Reuters. ..."
"... IMO Sanders is worst among all the POTUS hopefuls. He lied repeatedly, In a debate with Hillary on Edward Snowden "He broke the law … but what he did [exposing the NSA surveillance] should be taken into consideration," Edward Snowden wanna fair trial, but can he get it? Dun Forget Assange afraid of assassinated, to speak from Ecuador embassy balcony to exposed Hillary. Can you trust Obomo's Justice Dept. or anyone in his administration? ..."
"... Outrage Can No Longer Be Ignored. The elections methods enterprise consists of an imposing compilation of distracting, unworkable feints, erroneously purported to constitute viable election methods. Get strategic hedge simple score voting. No More Two-Party!!! No more!!! ..."
"... The social theorist Zygmunt Bauman argues that the age of nations states, which was born with the treaty that ended the Thirty Years War, and which we all take for granted, is now over. Nation States made decisions through politics and then used power to implement their wishes. Now, however, power no longer resides with the state, but instead is in the hands of international entities -- corporations, banks, criminal enterprises -- that are above, beyond and indifferent to any nation's political decisions. ..."
"... Although American presidents, the congress, the courts still pretend otherwise, it's pretty clear they know they have no real power, and so go through charades of legislating meaningless issues. Allowing Americans to sue Saudi Arabia, for example, when there's not the slightest chance of pinning 911 on the Saudis. ..."
"... The election is a circus meant to distract and entertain a powerless public. Might as well enjoy it. The Dems and Repugs like to strut and posture, rake in dollars and enjoy prestige, and try to make us believe they can still shape the future, but really it out of their control. ..."
"... Of course the U.S. has tremendous military power, but the "elected" government has no control over it, how it is used or where. JFK's murder ended that era, ..."
"... Many here think the U.S., and hence the U.S. military, is controlled by Israel, but Israel too is a nation state, and supra-national institutions ($$$$) seem to be running it as well, ..."
"... My take as an outsider. Use Trump to take down the elite. His foreign policy basics are consistent and solid - non intervention, pull back of US military to the US, protection of local manufacturing. ..."
"... US involvement in Libya began at Hillary's urging shortly after Hillary received this advice from her confidante Sidney Blumenthal. Note that the advice that the overthrow of Qaddafi needed to be connected with "an identifiable rebellion" in Syria means that it needs to be connected with civil war in Syria. US involvement in Libya was, of course, coordinated out of Benghazi, as the advice to Hillary suggested. ..."
"... Once the fall of Qaddafi was a fait accompli, Hillary's State Department advocated the overthrow of Bashar Assad as a critical component for calming Israel so that President Barrack Obama could accomplish his legacy nuclear pact with Iran without Israel blowing Iran up before the deal was sealed. ..."
"... No. Planning for overthrow of Assad - and use of extremists as a weapon of State - was begun in earnest in 2006; as described by Seymour Hersh in "The Redirection". ..."
"... Anyone else notice that Hillary couldn't remember what she did while in office? Major mistake. ..."
"... Clinton insisted she had retired from the government by the time that happened. Not so: Obama dared Assad to cross his line in August 2012, six months before Clinton's term ended. ..."
The tape of Trump talking dirty was released just in time to sidetrack from the release of more
of Clinton's dirty secrets by Wikileaks. Trump's talk was juvenile and sexist bragging in front of
other "boys". Surprising it was not. There will more releases like that, all timed to run cover for
Clinton.
The just released emails of
her campaign chairman John Podesta about Clinton's talk to Wall Street and other Clinton related
issues are indeed revealing. She
is the sell-out you
would expect her to be:
*CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY*
Clinton: "But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals,
you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a
private position."
It is funny how the U.S. electorate has a deeper
"very negative" view of Trump (-44%) and Clinton (-41%) than of the much vilified Russian President
Putin (-38%).
When Trump will come back in the polls (not "if"), it will be a devious fight with daily "leaks"
followed by counter leaks and a lot of dirty laundry washed in front of the public. Good.
Many of the people who will vote will vote against a candidate, not for the one
that they will mark on their ballot. I expect a very low turn out election, barely giving a mandate,
to whomever may win or get selected to have won. Elwood | Oct 9, 2016 9:26:03 AM |
1
Uh no. The silent majority that swept Reagan into office will speak again this year.
Please stick to geo-politics and quit embarrassing yourself re: domestic US politics. Trump is
done and the longer it takes for you and the rest of the fake-left - both domestically and abroad
- to get their heads around that fact, the longer the rest of us have to witness the frightfully
shameful mental contortions your Trump-love takes.
Please stop. It's one thing to have to deal with shallow and inaccurate fake-left analysis
without a healthy dose of butt-hurt b/c Hillary will be POTUS.
Grow up and quit being a victim of the US propaganda arsenal.
In other words, I shall lie to the "Deplorables" to keep you safe from regulation and incarceration.
Give me money. I am a corrupt and experienced liar.
I had a home inspector come to my place last week, intelligent and skilled working class guy,
who didn't even know who Trump was. He knew Clinton was running and hates her. But had zero clue
who her opponent was. And he's never voted before. There are very few election signs on yards.
It's an election for and among the ruling class.
BURN. IT. DOWN. That was the WHOLE point of Trump voters from the get-go. And his slide toward
zionist scumbags was a HUUUGE problem. To me at least. Now he SEES. And he won't be shut down
by the fukwits. And regardless of what happens. He is likely carefully considering having his
son-in-law fall down a VERY deep hole. His daughter and grandchildren will thank him one day.
Et tu Brutus?
Here's what the Deplorables will be doing. On election day. 1) Bring black sharpie. 2) Demand
PAPER ballot. 3) Vote Trump. 4) Vote I or D down-ballot. 5) Fill in all blanks.
And by-the-way. To #2 Ron. We do this for Syria. And Yemen. And all the OTHER people the USG,
MIC, MSM ZIOthugs have been murdering and enslaving for the past 50+ years. Not just for ourselves
and our children. It's the absolute LEAST we can do. But its a start.
Scott Adams who has been right so far says Trump still has a clear path to victory. The media
is just trying to blackpill everyone. Why should we believe them? They are saying Trump can't
win because they said he can't win.
Ron is obviously a Clinton groupie.
Btw, how is what Trump said sexist? It's just real dude talk with the lads. Plenty of people
say that behind closed doors.
@2. I happen to think Trump is another wolf in a sheep's clothe and won't deliver any significant
part of his promises, so like you, I am baffled that someone like b could actually buy into this.
However unlike you, I don't think the election is predictable, I think it actually bodes well
for Trump, why? It seems clear from the polls, that Hillary isn't a preferred choice for majority
of the voters. If he was, she should be polling close to the 50 point mark by now, yet she's in
the low 40s, someone with her resume running against a political light weight like Trump should
be doing much better. So what does that mean? It means (at lest to me) voters have rejected Hillary
as a firs choice, she may be second or third but she's definitely not most voters first choice.
So Trump has a chance, although he's working his darnes to ruin it, Imagine if it was someone
else had Trumps message without the baggage?
The polls wouldn't be close, I think the undecided (who don't have Hillary has their first
choice) will decide this election at the last minute, if Trump has more recordings leaked (not
about his tryst) but for instance the NYT interview where he supposedly said he's not going to
build a wall? ( I think that will be leaked soon if the polls don't move in Hillary's favor, the
establishment clearly has their preference). If there are no more damages to Trump, he may very
well win this thing, but I suspect the empire has more leaks coming.
I for one thinks a third party candidate is where its at, but what do I know?
Want to read some original observations? (1) The Pence-Is-So-Presidential vp debate win was a
complete set-up, with the DNC complicit in instructing Tim Kaine to play the obvious heavy, a
movie caricature villian, complete with raised eyebrows, crazy expressions, and interrupting 70+
times. Made Pence a new hero. Reason? (2) GOP Rinos and DNC have been co-ordinating for months
on "perfect time" to release Trump's Naughty Audio Tape (sharp ears can also detect it was edited),
and this was reported by DC Whispers and journalists Mr/Mrs Bill & Beth Still in a recent video.
(3) Media had their 'talking points' to conclude with NBC's Chuck Todd yesterday: "The election
is over. Hillary has won." (4) GOP Paul Ryan did high-profile dis-invitation of Trump to Wisconsin;
and then Pence substitution at event (vetoed by Trump) was to support GOP Establishment plot to
replace Trump with Pence on the ticket, which they will still try to do when the DNC floats false
pedophile charges against Trump w/o Oct. 9 (DNC whistleblowers gave full plan to Alex Jones because
even there, some people are too disgusted with all this dirt to 'carry on camping'). Pence was
in on the conspiracy from the very beginning. Another smiling choirboy.
For nearly a generation now there have been decent candidates for US president who would, to a
greater or lesser degree, have opposed our increasingly corrupt and violent oligarchy. Ross Perot,
Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, Jill Stein, Rick Santorum ... and many more you haven't
heard of. The elites have perfected a system of taking them down, with no messy assassination.
Ridicule them in the press, don't cover their positions, just their style, find a flaw or mis-statement
and hammer hammer hammer until people believe that they are ridiculous, then ban them from the
media.
Trump's big mouth and complete lack of shame has, for now, made him relatively immune to this
treatment. So now the establishment is doubling down on the only thing it knows how to do. They
are 'reporting' that Trump is finished. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But it would be wise to remember
that the corporate press doesn't report the news any more, it is attempting to create the news,
out of whole cloth. Remember how many times they said that Trump was 'finished' during the primary?
I mean, how come what Trump said ten years ago in a private conversation, is headline news,
while Hillary Clinton's decision to ALLY THE UNITED STATES WITH AL QAEDA AND RISK WAR WITH RUSSIA
TO DEFEND THEM is somehow a minor detail? It's crazy when you think about it.
Donald Trump has said unfortunate off-the-cuff things. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State,
has actually DONE some things so crazy that if I wrote her up as a character in a work of fiction
my editor would reject it as unbelievable.
So I am voting for Trump even if the New York Times says he is doomed. We don't really know
what he will do as president, but in the business world he has proven the ability to actually
get along with disparate people in a constructive way. Hillary Clinton is a bona fide monster
who should scare any sane person. We know exactly what she will do as president, and attacking
Russian forces in Syria will be just the start...
Better a chance on a wildcard, then certain doom. IMHO.
The Podesta e-mails show Killary in her true colors (see b.) The few I read though were unsurprising
and boring, because she is mentally challenged, as is her staff, they are in a bubble. The leaks
re. her speeches to Banksters ditto, and anyway the speeches are immaterial, they are just empty,
fakelorum, performances carried out to legitimise bribery in a completely corrupt circuit.
One e-mail (idk who wrote it and can't find it back): a campaign manager who had his head screwed
on stated that most likely one needs to add 10 points to Trump re. polls. Details were a bit bizarre
and convoluted...no matter...
It reminded me that in France all the 'official' polls use an 'algorithm' based on 'hunches
dressed up in fancy pyscho-babble verbiage' that add between 2 and 5% to NF votes (depending on
election, region, first/second round, etc.) Necessary for maintaining their credibility, to come
closer to what the real results will show.
As for Trump's locker-room bragaddacio, not one single Trump supporter will flip, and undecideds
etc. may switch to Trump, finding such an 'attack' illegit, frivolous, etc. It throws light on
the fact that what Killary is being accused of - e-mails, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, pay to
play, etc. - is extremely serious, whereas smutty chat is part-o-life.
Imho the underlying aim of the release (first, serving to create buzzz! to cover over the leaks
natch) was to furnish a reason for segments of the PTB establishment base, nominally
Repubs., to come forward and support HRC, after they were subjected to pressure, arm-twisting,
possibly even blackmail.
I concur with the very first post...it will be a Trump landslide. The silent majority- the plurality
of voters who are neither D nor R. We have no voice in politics and no voice in the media. We
already see through the lies and the hypocracy. That is Trumps target audience. Even if it is
just a show at least Trump talks about policies
Trump is still going to "win" the election. I put the win in quotations because that will not
mean that he would be declared winner. The plan to rig the election has always been part of the
plan, what this leak provides is a way to persuade the gullible people that the tape cost Trump
the election. The oligarchs in both parties and all over the Western world are truly terrified
of a Trump presidency but equally terrified of the reaction of the masses, should the election
be brazenly rigged with no plausible reasons. They have tried to manipulate the polls and it is
not succeeding. But now they can go back to their pseudo pollsters and start dishing out dubious
polls until the election. That would appear credible to the credulous voters who by and large
are, frankly, dim. The two parties and the global oligarchs and their media shoeshine crew have
now found a convenient talking point to prepare the ground for an eventual rigging of the election.
Trump and his supporters must henceforth be more vigilant and pull no punches in exposing the
Clintons' perfidy.
#22 I'd say "war criminals who rule us" is Hillary's job title to a T. So many Hillary supporters
are giving off the scent of mixed rage and panic these days.
And on other fronts - the Vice News vid I just watched was titled 'the US/Russia Proxy War in
Ukraine'. I was shocked. Their prior coverage was 200% neocon blather. (Aka Simon Otrovsky IIRc)
Could it be a beginning of a revolt by the MSM? If CNN begins to refer to Syria and Ukraine as
proxy wars, it means the Empire's control of MSM is slipping. And that would spell the end for
them.
To 31. Nah. It's not the end of 'em. Just controlled opposition. Cuz thru all this miasma. LOTS
of decent folks are hip to what's happening in Yemen and Syria. The muppets are rubbing sleep
from their tired little eyes. And SEE what the MSM has been neglecting to tell them. The MSM aren't
stupid. They hope feeding the muppets some bit of truthiness, we'll fall back into an MSM-stupor.
Sadly. The MSM has lost too many muppets. Gone for good. This CIVIL WAR won't be fought carnally.
But it will be just as bloody. Cuz metaphysical warfare is something for which they are NOT prepared
to battle.
I think the term used here refers to any form of modern mass release of bombs or missiles.
Each B-52 which of course can refuel so fly from anywhere, & is ponderously slow, can release
about 24 cruise missiles, serially, from a rotary dispenser inside, from standoff distances.
So the problem becomes "How many 'rounds' do the russians have for each & every one of their
missile batteries there?"
Except that he didn't inherit or steal his money, he demonstrated he's nearly perfect example
of the 1% when he mocked any voter who has a opinion about anything except for his own opinion
that estate taxes are theft (though so would be Trump's inflation-based tax -- thereby demonstrating
Mr. Scott 1%-er Adams is less informed than he is rich) and that (according to Scott Adams himself)
is far and away the issue that matters to Scott Adams in this election.
Who gave you or the Democrats the right to demand changes after the Primaries? .....believe
Gallup's polls and anyone who happen to disagree with you a troll?
IMO Sanders is worst among all the POTUS hopefuls. He lied repeatedly, In a debate with Hillary
on Edward Snowden "He broke the law … but what he did [exposing the NSA surveillance] should be
taken into consideration," Edward Snowden wanna fair trial, but can he get it? Dun Forget Assange
afraid of assassinated, to speak from Ecuador embassy balcony to exposed Hillary. Can you trust
Obomo's Justice Dept. or anyone in his administration?
Sanders said "Well, as somebody who spent many months of my life when I was a kid in Israel,
who has family in Israel, of course Israel has a right not only to defend themselves, but to live
in peace and security without fear of terrorist attack." Did you look at Google's Palestine
map (taken down after protests)?
You have, perhaps, heard me mention "strategic hedge simple score voting" here before. Here are
two short pieces I have posted at the website "The Center for Election Science", at: https://electology.org/forums/theory
/~~~~~~~~~~
They tend to fall back on a Google+ Groups "site" which I do not use since I refuse to join (corporate)
"social media" at: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/electionscience
Outrage Can No Longer Be Ignored. The elections methods enterprise consists of an imposing
compilation of distracting, unworkable feints, erroneously purported to constitute viable election
methods. Get strategic hedge simple score voting. No More Two-Party!!! No more!!!
Giving Americans a choice of candidates no one wants is a way of humiliating them, of showing
them they have no say in how they are ruled. It's much like Caligula appointing his horse to the
Roman Senate to show his power and his contempt for the senators who might still have thought
they had a say in running Rome.
The social theorist Zygmunt Bauman argues that the age of nations states, which was born with
the treaty that ended the Thirty Years War, and which we all take for granted, is now over. Nation
States made decisions through politics and then used power to implement their wishes. Now, however,
power no longer resides with the state, but instead is in the hands of international entities
-- corporations, banks, criminal enterprises -- that are above, beyond and indifferent to any
nation's political decisions.
Although American presidents, the congress, the courts still pretend otherwise, it's pretty
clear they know they have no real power, and so go through charades of legislating meaningless
issues. Allowing Americans to sue Saudi Arabia, for example, when there's not the slightest chance
of pinning 911 on the Saudis.
If WW3 or anything else is in the cards it will happen no matter who is elected, Clinton, Trump
or someone else.
The election is a circus meant to distract and entertain a powerless public. Might as well
enjoy it. The Dems and Repugs like to strut and posture, rake in dollars and enjoy prestige, and
try to make us believe they can still shape the future, but really it out of their control.
Indeed, according to Bauman, things may be spinning out of anyone's control. That's everywhere,
not just in the U.S.
Of course the U.S. has tremendous military power, but the "elected" government has no control
over it, how it is used or where. JFK's murder ended that era,
Many here think the U.S., and hence the U.S. military, is controlled by Israel, but Israel
too is a nation state, and supra-national institutions ($$$$) seem to be running it as well,
Recently there have been plenty of posts here pointing out the contradictions and inexplicable
behavior of American leaders concerning Syria -- is the military opposing the State Department?
Is the "CIA" opposing both and calling the shots? I think Bauman would agree (?) that in the final
analysis, none of them are running things. Americans, including their supposed leaders, have lost
control of their destiny and can only do as they are told.
I'm not qualified to judge Bauman's assertion. I'm only suggesting it gives a plausible explanation
for the current insanity we're living through. "The State of Crisis" (2014). A great work (only
150 pages) that you'll be glad to read if you haven't already read it.
My take as an outsider. Use Trump to take down the elite. His foreign policy basics are consistent
and solid - non intervention, pull back of US military to the US, protection of local manufacturing.
These are the two best policies to break the globalised elite, US would go through some hard times
for a bit re-adjusting, then take off again as part of this world rather than wannabe ruler of
this world.
Trump's line about Gens. Macarthur and Patton rolling over in their graves was masterful. Telling
Hil that she doesn't know who Isis is. Declaring Aleppo lost. Scored some points. The Trump of
yesterday's news is not the Trump in the debate. I find this strangely reassuring. Got her on
the 3:00AM phone call in res Benghazi. Whoever ran Trump's prep gets a free drink on me.
US involvement in Libya began at Hillary's urging shortly after Hillary received this advice
from her confidante Sidney Blumenthal. Note that the advice that the overthrow of Qaddafi needed
to be connected with "an identifiable rebellion" in Syria means that it needs to be connected
with civil war in Syria. US involvement in Libya was, of course, coordinated out of Benghazi,
as the advice to Hillary suggested.
Once the fall of Qaddafi was a fait accompli, Hillary's State Department advocated the overthrow
of Bashar Assad as a critical component for calming Israel.
No. Planning for overthrow of Assad - and use of extremists as a weapon of State - was begun in
earnest in 2006; as described by Seymour Hersh in "The Redirection".
Anyone else notice that Hillary couldn't remember what she did while in office? Major mistake.
Trump recalled that Clinton was secretary of state when President Barack Obama drew his now-infamous
rhetorical 'red line' in Syria, ineffectively warning Bashar al-Assad not to use chemical weapons
against insurgents and civilians.
Clinton insisted she had retired from the government by the time that happened. Not so: Obama
dared Assad to cross his line in August 2012, six months before Clinton's term ended.
She can't even remain standing during a presidential debate, and can't remember what she did,
either.
@ 31 Vice "news" is a bad joke. All their Syria and Libya coverage is 200% pro al-Qaeda/DoS policy.
They even had a "journalist" embedded with al-Nusra in Aleppo in 2014 and portrayed them in a
favourable light. It doesn't surprise me that their Ukraine coverage follows a similar pattern.
The WikiLeaks material is highly relevant to how Clinton would
actually govern, as opposed to how she says she will govern. Because of
the oddly timed release of the Trump hot mike tape, this story seems to
be getting buried, so I'll go into it in some detail. First some links:
*CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON
POLICY*
*Clinton: "But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back
Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little
Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private
Position."*
(The email is a compilation of quotes from Clinton's paid speeches,
not otherwise available. It begins: "Attached are the flags from HRC's
paid speeches we have from HWA." The asterisked material is how the
Clinton campaign staffer "flagged" the quotes they considered dangerous.)
Since these quotes are from paid speeches, we can expect Clinton's
private position - expect, that is, if we assume that Clinton isn't
cheating her clients by failing to deliver value for money in terms of
services to be rendered - to be a more accurate representation of her
views than her public one. In other words, we're looking at a pitch to
the donor class, when Clinton was laying the groundwork for her campaign.
In an
oligarchy
, this would be natural.
I believe I've mentioned to readers that my vision of the first 100
days of a Clinton administration includes a Grand Bargain, the passage of
TPP, and a new war. So you can read the following as confirmation bias,
if you will.
But Simpson-Bowles - and I know you heard from Erskine earlier
today - put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to
restrain spending
, we have to have adequate revenues, and we
have to incentivize growth. It's a three-part formula. The specifics
can be negotiated depending upon whether we're acting in good faith or
not [!!].
Readers will of course be aware that the fiscal views intrinsic to
Simpson-Bowles have been the perennial justification for Social Security
cuts (
"the
progressive give-up formula"
) and austerity generally. And if you
think Democrat orthodoxy on SImpson Bowles has changed, see Robert Rubin
today (below). If you buy Simpson-Bowles, you buy Social Security cuts.
The policy is bad enough, but "depending upon whether we're acting in
good faith or not" is, to me, the real mind-boggler.
Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With
Open Trade And Open Markets. *"My dream is a hemispheric common
market, with
open trade and open borders
, some time in the
future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it,
powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."
On "green," see Clinton below on climate change. On trade, anybody
with a "dream" like that will not surrender TPP lightly.
Hillary Clinton Said One Of The Problems With A No Fly Zone Would
Be The Need To Take Out Syria's Air Defense, And "You're Going To Kill
A Lot Of Syrians." "So we're not as good as we used to be, but we
still-we can still deliver, and we should have in my view been trying
to do that so we would have better insight. But the idea that we would
have like a no fly zone-Syria, of course, did have when it started the
fourth biggest Army in the world. It had very sophisticated air
defense systems. They're getting more sophisticated thanks to Russian
imports. To have
a no fly zone
you have to take out all of
the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our
missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our
pilots at risk-you're going to kill a lot of Syrians. So all of a
sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an
American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians." [
Speech to Goldman Sachs, 2013 IBD Ceo Annual Conference, 6/4/13]
And speaking of beating the war drums, there's this gobsmacking quote
on
climate change
(tinePublic, 2014):
Clinton Talked About "Phony Environmental Groups" Funded By The
Russians To Stand Against Pipelines And Fracking. "We were up against
Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up
against phony environmental groups, and I'm a big environmentalist,
but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, oh
that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you,
and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from
Russia." [Remarks at tinePublic, 6/18/14]
With the media exclusively attuned to every new, or 11-year-old as the case may be, twist in the
Trump "sex tape" saga, it appeared that everyone forgot that a little over 24 hours ago, Wikileaks
exposed the real reason why Hillary was keeping her Wall Street speech transcripts - which we now
know had always been within easy reach for her campaign - secret.
In her own words : "if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the
deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and
a private position." In other words, you have to lie to the general public while promising those
who just paid you $250,000 for an hour of your speaking time something entirely different, which
is precisely what those accusing Hillary of hiding her WS transcripts had done; and as yesterday's
hacked documents revealed, they were right.
The Clinton campaign
refused to disavow the hacked excerpts, although it quickly tired to pin the blame again on Russia:
"We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange, who
has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton," spokesman Glen Caplin said in a prepared
statement. Previous releases have "Guccifer 2.0 has already proven the warnings of top national security
officials that documents can be faked as part of a sophisticated Russian misinformation campaign."
Ironically, it was literally minutes before the Wikileaks release of the "Podesta Files" that
the US formally accused Russia of waging a hacking cyber attack on the US political establishment,
almost as if it knew Wikileaks was about to make the major disclosure, and sought to minimize its
impact by scapegoating Vladimir Putin.
And while the Trump campaign tried to slam the leak, with spokesman saying "now we finally get
confirmation of Clinton's catastrophic plans for completely open borders and diminishing America's
influence in the world. There is a reason Clinton gave these high-paid speeches in secret behind
closed doors - her real intentions will destroy American sovereignty as we know it, further illustrating
why Hillary Clinton is simply unfit to be president", Trump's campaign had its own raging inferno
to deal with.
So, courtesy of what Trump said about some woman 11 years ago, in all the din over the oddly coincident
Trump Tape leak, most of the noise created by the Hillary speeches was lost.
But not all.
According to
Reuters , supporters of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Saturday "
seethed ", and "expressed anger and vindication over leaked comments made by Hillary Clinton
to banks and big business that appeared to confirm their fears about her support for global trade
and tendency to cozy up to Wall Street. "
Clinton,
who last it emerged had slammed Bernie supporters as "basement dwellers" in a February fundraiser,
with virtually no media coverage, needs Sanders' coalition of young and left-leaning voters to propel
her to the presidency, pushes for open trade and open borders in one of the speeches, and
takes a conciliatory approach to Wall Street , both positions she later backed away from
in an effort to capture the popular appeal of Sanders' attacks on trade deals and powerful banks.
Needless to say, there was no actualy "backing away", and instead Hillary did what he truly excels
in better than most: she told the public what they wanted to hear, and will promptly reneg on once
she becomes president.
Only now, this is increasingly obvious to America's jilted youth: " this is a very clear
illustration of why there is a fundamental lack of trust from progressives for Hillary Clinton,"
said Tobita Chow, chair of the People's Lobby in Chicago, which endorsed Sanders in the
primary election.
" The progressive movement needs to make a call to Secretary Clinton to clarify where
she stands really on these issues and that's got to involve very clear renunciations of the positions
that are revealed in these transcripts," Chow said.
Good luck that, or even getting a response, even though Hillary was largely spared from providing
one: as Reuters correctly observes, the revelations were immediately overshadowed by the release
of an 11-year-old recording of Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, making lewd comments
about women. In fact, the revelations were almost entirely ignored by the same prime time TV that
has been glued to the Trump slow-motion trainwreck over the past 24 hours.
Still, the hacked speeches could lead to further erosion in support from the so very critical
to her successful candidacy, young American voter.
Clinton has worked hard to build trust with so-called progressives, adopting several of Sanders'
positions after she bested him in the primary race. The U.S. senator from Vermont now supports
his former rival in the Nov. 8 general election against Trump. Still, Clinton has struggled to
win support from young "millennials" who were crucial to Sanders' success, and some Democrats
expressed concern that the leaks would discourage those supporters from showing up to vote.
"That is a big concern and this certainly doesn't help," said Larry Cohen, chair
of the board of Our Revolution, a progressive organization formed in the wake of Sanders' bid for
the presidency, which aims to keep pushing the former candidate's ideas at a grassroots level. "It
matters in terms of turnout, energy, volunteering, all those things."
Still, despite the Trump media onslaught, the message appeared to filter through to those who
would be most impacted by Hillary selling out her voters if she were to win the presidency.
"Bernie was right about Hillary," wrote Facebook user Grace Tilly cited by Rueters, "she's a tool
for Wall Street."
"Clinton is the politicians' politician - exactly the Wall Street insider Bernie described," wrote
Facebook user Brian Leach.
Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf said progressive voters would still choose the former first
lady, even with misgivings. "I'd like to meet the Bernie Sanders supporter who is going to say, 'Well
I'm a little worried about her on international trade, so I'm going to vote for Donald Trump'," he
said.
He just may meet a few, especially if Bernie's supporters ask themselves why Bernie's support
for Hillary remained so unwavering despite a leak confirming that Hillary was indeed all he had previously
railed against.
In a statement earlier, Sanders responded to the leak by saying that despite Hillary's paid speeches
to Wall Street in which she expressed an agenda diametrically opposite to that espoused by the Vermont
socialist, he reiterated his his support for the Democratic Party platform.
"Whatever Secretary Clinton may or may not have said behind closed doors on Wall Street, I am
determined to implement the agenda of the Democratic Party platform which was agreed upon by her
campaign," he said in a statement.
"Among other things, that agenda calls for breaking up the largest financial institutions
in this country, re-establishing Glass-Steagall and prosecuting those many Wall Street CEOs who engaged
in illegal behavior. "
In retrospect we find it fascinating that in the aftermath of October's two big surprises served
up on Friday, Sanders actually believes any of that having read through Hillary's
Wall Street speeches, certainly far more fascinating than the staged disgust with Trump who, the
media is suddenly stunned to find, was no more politically correct 11 year ago than he is today.
Yesterday
we pointed
out the many amazing one-liners offered up by Hillary as she was out
collecting millions of dollars for her "Wall Street speeches." Here is an expanded
sample:
Hillary Clinton: "I'm Kind Of Far Removed" From The Struggles Of The
Middle Class "Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That
My Husband And I Now Enjoy."
"And I am not taking a position on any policy,
but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over
the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing
up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father
loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle
class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care. We
had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money,
didn't believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far
removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my
husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it." [Hillary Clinton Remarks at
Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]
Hillary Clinton Said There Was "A Bias Against People Who Have Led
Successful And/Or Complicated Lives," Citing The Need To Divese Of Assets, Positions,
And Stocks.
"SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Well, you know what Bob Rubin said
about that. He said, you know, when he came to Washington, he had a fortune. And
when he left Washington, he had a small -- MR. BLANKFEIN: That's how
you have a small fortune, is you go to Washington. SECRETARY CLINTON: You go to
Washington. Right. But, you know, part of the problem with the
political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led
successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of assets, the
stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes very
onerous and unnecessary." [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]
Hillary Clinton Noted President Clinton Had Spoken At The Same Goldman
Summit Last Year, And Blankfein Joked "He Increased Our Budget."
"SECRETARY
CLINTON: Well, first, thanks for having me here and giving me a chance to know a
little bit more about the builders and the innovators who you've gathered. Some of
you might have been here last year, and my husband was, I guess, in this very same
position. And he came back and was just thrilled by- MR. BLANKFEIN: He increased
our budget. SECRETARY CLINTON: Did he? MR. BLANKFEIN: Yes. That's why
we -- SECRETARY CLINTON: Good. I think he-I think he encouraged you to
grow it a little, too. But it really was a tremendous experience for him, so I've
been looking forward to it and hope we have a chance to talk about a lot of things."
[Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]
Clinton Said When She Got To State, Employees "Were Not Mostly Permitted
To Have Handheld Devices."
"You know, when Colin Powell showed up as
Secretary of State in 2001, most State Department employees still didn't even have
computers on their desks. When I got there they were not mostly permitted to have
handheld devices. I mean, so you're thinking how do we operate in this new
environment dominated by technology, globalizing forces? We have to change, and I
can't expect people to change if I don't try to model it and lead it." [Clinton
Speech For General Electric's Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]
Clinton Joked It's "Risky" For Her To Speak To A Group Committed To
Futures Markets
Given Her Past Whitewater Scandal. "Now, it's always a
little bit risky for me to come speak to a group that is committed to the futures
markets because -- there's a few knowing laughs -- many years ago, I actually traded
in the futures markets. I mean, this was so long ago, it was before computers were
invented, I think. And I worked with a group of like-minded friends and associates
who traded in pork bellies and cotton and other such things, and I did pretty well. I
invested about a thousand dollars and traded up to about a hundred thousand. And then
my daughter was born, and I just didn't think I had enough time or mental space to
figure out anything having to do with trading other than trading time with my
daughter for time with the rest of my life. So I got out, and I thought that would be
the end of it." [Remarks to CME Group, 11/18/13]
Hillary Clinton Said Jordan Was Threatened Because
"They Can't Possibly
Vet All Those Refugees So They Don't Know If, You Know, Jihadists Are Coming In Along
With Legitimate Refugees."
"So I think you're right to have gone to the
places that you visited because there's a discussion going on now across the region
to try to see where there might be common ground to deal with the threat posed by
extremism and particularly with Syria which has everyone quite worried, Jordan
because it's on their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they
can't possibly vet all those refugees so they don't know if, you know, jihadists are
coming in along with legitimate refugees. Turkey for the same reason." [Jewish
United Fund Of Metropolitan Chicago Vanguard Luncheon, 10/28/13]
Hillary Clinton Said The Saudis Opposed The Muslim Brotherhood, "Which Is
Kind Of Ironic Since The Saudis Have Exported More Extreme Ideology Than Any Other
Place On Earth Over The Course Of The Last 30 Years."
"And they are getting
a lot of help from the Saudis to the Emiratis-to go back to our original
discussion-because the Saudis and the Emiratis see the Muslim Brotherhood as
threatening to them, which is kind of ironic since the Saudis have exported more
extreme ideology than any other place on earth over the course of the last 30 years."
[2014 Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner, 10/28/13]
Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And
Open Markets.
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and
open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as
we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."
[05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]
Meanwhile, there are plenty of other great email exchanges as well.
The following exchange comes from the
President of the Soros-funded "
Open
Society Foundation
"
(we previously wrote about the society's plan to
"Enlarge electorate by at least 10 million voters"
here
) who
offers some advice on "police reform."
The email points
Podesta to an article previously written by the
Open Society Foundation
, ironically titled
"
Get
the Politics Out of Policing
."
Surprisingly,
Stone points out that
the problem isn't a lack of independence by police but by politicians:
The problem is
not
a lack
of independence just from the police
,
but independence from city
politics.
Since 2007, Chicago has had an agency separate from the police to
investigate officer-involved shootings, but the "independent" agency (the Independent
Police Review Authority, or IPRA) is still under the mayor, and generally retreats
from any investigation that might lead to criminal charges.
Until we get
investigations of cases like this out of the hands of politicians, even the best
policies a police chief can impose won't change the culture.
Well that seemed to backfire.
To summarize, Stone says
don't
do exactly what the FBI did in its
investigation of Hillary's email scandal.
Barry and the spooks make it official today –
Putin did it!
re: the DNC email leaks.
But as you note, the Dems are not coming off as particularly trustworthy.
Checking the comments of that article, the dogs aren't eating the dogfood
and seem to have noticed the claims are still based on absolutely no
evidence whatsoever.
"Wikileaks' Julian Assange to release 'significant' documents on US
election, Google, arms trading over next 10 weeks" [
International
Business Times
]. Oh, not the next 31 days?
Complete with a copy of everything problematic in her wall street spaces.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927#efmAIuAMKAViAXv
THEY ARE BAD
"But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And
The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So,
You Need Both A Public And A Private Position
."
-100% pro trade
-Shits on single payer
-Wall Street should regulate itself… sigh.
Don't worry, the CTR shills are already on Reddit and social media
framing this as another "nothing burger," or that it is actually good for
her. The campaign's pals in the MSM are sure to follow, especially
considering the reprehensible recording of Trump that was released
earlier today (granted, as a man, I have heard many men say things as bad
or worse than Trump has said at various stages in my life) gives them a
foil to wrap this hot potato in.
"... "There's just a deep desire to believe that we can have free college, free healthcare, that what we've done hasn't gone far enough, and that we just need to, you know, go as far as, you know, Scandinavia, whatever that means, and half the people don't know what that means, but it's something that they deeply feel," ..."
"... "I am occupying from the center-left to the center-right. And I don't have much company there. Because it is difficult when you're running to be president, and you understand how hard the job is – I don't want to overpromise," said Clinton, who has customarily eschewed political spectrum labels. ..."
"... "understanding" ..."
"... "Some are new to politics completely. They're children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents' basement. They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don't see much of a future," ..."
"... "If you're feeling like you're consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some other job that doesn't pay a lot, and doesn't have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it, then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing." ..."
"... "listening to the concerns" of "the most diverse, open-minded generation in history." ..."
"... People who have the TV on all day and watch the news from the mainstream media are naturally going to get hoodwinked. They aren't the brightest, but they're also distracted and mislead. ..."
"... She is the definition of implicit bias. ..."
"... After all, they are the deplorables. HRC is truly the most despicable, scandal ridden, lying war monger to ever grace American politics. ..."
"... Shame on Sanders for supporting that Nazi witch. ..."
"... Millions of people were adversely harmed by her misguided policies and her "pay-to-play" operations involving favors in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative. ..."
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made forthright remarks about Bernie Sanders'
supporters during a private meeting with fundraisers, an audio from which has been leaked following
an email hack.
"There's just a deep desire to believe that we can have free college, free healthcare, that
what we've done hasn't gone far enough, and that we just need to, you know, go as far as, you know,
Scandinavia, whatever that means, and half the people don't know what that means, but it's something
that they deeply feel," Clinton said during a Q&A with potential donors in McLean in Virginia,
in February, when she was still in a close primary race with Sanders.
The frontrunner to become the next US President said that herself and other election observers
had been "bewildered" by the rise of the "populist, nationalist, xenophobic, discriminatory"
Republican candidates, presumably Donald Trump, on the one side, and the radical left-wing idealists
on the other.
Clinton painted herself as a moderate and realistic contrast to the groundswell.
"I am occupying from the center-left to the center-right. And I don't have much company there.
Because it is difficult when you're running to be president, and you understand how hard the job
is – I don't want to overpromise," said Clinton, who has customarily eschewed political spectrum
labels.
According to the Washington Free Beacon, which posted the audio of Clinton's remarks, the recording
was attached to an email sent out by a campaign staffer, which has been hacked. It is unclear if
the leak is the work of the same hackers who got hold of a trove of Democratic National Committee
(DNC) emails in July.
... ... ...
In the session, Clinton called for an "understanding" of the motives of Sanders' younger
backers, while describing them in terms that fluctuate between patronizing and unflattering.
"Some are new to politics completely. They're children of the Great Recession. And they are
living in their parents' basement. They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available
to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don't see much of a future,"
said Clinton, who obtained the support of about 2,800 delegates, compared to approximately 1,900
for Sanders, when the results were tallied in July.
"If you're feeling like you're consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some
other job that doesn't pay a lot, and doesn't have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it,
then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing."
Despite well-publicized tensions, particularly between the more vocal backers, Sanders endorsed
Clinton at the Democratic National Convention two months ago, and the two politicians have campaigned
together this week, sharing the stage.
Following the leak, the Clinton campaign has not apologized for the audio, insisting that it shows
that the nominee and is "listening to the concerns" of "the most diverse, open-minded generation
in history."
"As Hillary Clinton said in those remarks , she wants young people to be idealistic and set big
goals," said her spokesman Glen Caplin. "She is fighting for exactly millennial generation cares
more about – a fairer, more equal, just world."
In other parts of the 50-minute recording, Clinton spoke about US capacity to "retaliate"
against foreign hackers that would serve as a "deterrence" and said she would be "inclined"
to mothball the costly upgrade of the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) missile program.
The more she runs her mouth the more support she loses.
Gold Carrot -> Olive Sailboat 6m
Well if somebody is supported by Soros, Warren Buffet, Walmart family, Gates, Moskowitz, Pritzker,
Saban and Session what do you expect. Give me 8 names of other Americans who can top their money
worth. And even so called financial supporters of Republican party like Whitman and Koch brothers
are not supporting Trump. Whitman actually donate to Clinton. In fact most of the donation for
Trump campaign is coming from people who donate at average less than 200 dollars. Clinton represent
BIG MONEY that... See more
GA 2h
Clinton has a supremacist problem, she considers all americans under deserving people, she
thinks she is a pharaoh and we are little people. Reply Share 15
Red Ducky -> GA 23m
you think trump is different? ask yourself this question: Why do Rich people spend hundreds
of millions of dollars for a job that only pays $400K a year?
Rabid Rotty -> Red Ducky 9m
And Trump has stated several times that he will not take the Presidential Salary
pHiL SwEeT -> Rabid Rotty 8m
Uh, yah, Red Ducky just explained how it's not about the money, they're already rich. It's
about power, status, control and legacy.
Green Weights 2h
if Clinton sends her followers and their families to concentration camps, they'll still continue
supporting her. yes, that's how stupid they really are.
Olive Basketball -> Green Weights 55m
People who have the TV on all day and watch the news from the mainstream media are naturally
going to get hoodwinked. They aren't the brightest, but they're also distracted and mislead.
Cyan Beer 2h
She is the definition of implicit bias.
Norm de Plume
Sure enough. The real Americans. Not people, like her, who have dedicated their lives to
aggrandizing
themselves living effectively tax-free at the people's expense.
Seve141 7m
After all, they are the deplorables. HRC is truly the most despicable, scandal ridden, lying war
monger to ever grace American politics.
Tornado_Doom 12m
Shame on Sanders for supporting that Nazi witch.
Green Band Aid -> Tornado_Doom 12m
Sanders will be getting paid. All he does is for money.
Tornado_Doom -> Green Band Aid 11m
Does an old rich man like him need money?
Green Leaf 43m
Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State during Barack Obama's first term was an unmitigated
disaster for many nations around the world. The media has never adequately described how a
number of countries around the world suffered horribly from HC's foreign policy decisions.
Millions of people were adversely harmed by her misguided policies and her "pay-to-play" operations
involving favors in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative.
Countries adversely impacted by HC's foreign policy decisions include Abkhazia, Argentina,
Bolivia, Brazil, Central African Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti,
Honduras, Iraq, Kosovo, Libya, Malaysia, Palestine, Paraguay, South Sudan, Syria, Thailand,
Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Venezuela, Western Sahara, Yemen - one would think they had
a visit from the anti-Christ instead of HC. Or is HC the anti-Christ in disguise?
Green Leaf 45m
The majority of American's will vote Trump for 3 primary reasons.
1. National Security: They
trust him when it comes to protecting national security and to stop illegal aliens from entering
US boarders along with stopping the mass importation of un-vetted refugees from the middle
east.
2. Economy: They know he knows how to get things done under budget and ahead of schedule..
and he knows how to make money. They want a successful businessman in office, not another political
who is out to enrich his or herself at their expense. In addition he knows how to create jobs
and he has a major plan to cut taxes to help the poor - no tax for anyone earning less then
$50,000 and
3. Hillary's severe covered-up health problems: With all of the problems that the
US is experience they don't want someone who passes out from a seizure in the middle of the
day running the country. This is a severely ill woman is, evidently, of the rare kind that
requires a permanent traveling physician and a "mystery man" who rushes to her side whenever
she has one of her frequent and uncontrollable seizure "episodes" (or otherwise freezes up
with a brain "short-circuit" during a speech). She has Parkinson's. The pneumonia was just
a symptom for something much more serious. She even had a mini seizure during the debate for
those with a medical background to see.
"... Forget the Bernie hack, this one shows David Brock (Hilary Super-PAC) in action. Apparently they got access to FoxAcid, the top secret NSA software Snowden exposed. ..."
"... Honey for the conspiracy bears but this does smell right, and if it's real it's a bombshell: ..."
Forget the Bernie hack, this one shows David Brock (Hilary Super-PAC) in action. Apparently
they got access to FoxAcid, the top secret NSA software Snowden exposed.
Honey for the conspiracy bears but this does smell right, and if it's real it's a bombshell:
Guccifer 2.0
's latest release of DNC documents is generally described as:
In total, the latest dump contains more than 600 megabytes of documents.
It is the first Guccifer 2.0 release to not come from the hacker's WordPress
account. Instead, it was given out via a link to the small group of security
experts attending the London conference.
Guccifer 2.0 drops more DNC docs by Cory Bennett.
The "600 megabytes of documents" is an attention grabber, but how much of
that 600 megabytes is useful and/or interesting?
The answer turns out to be, not a lot.
Here's an overview of the directories and files:
/CIR
Financial investment data.
/CNBC
Financial investment data.
/DNC
Redistricting documents.
/DNCBSUser
One file with fields of VANDatabaseCode StateID VanID cons_id?
/documentation
A large amount of documentation for "IQ8," apparently address cleaning software.
Possibly useful if you want to know address cleaning rules from eight years
ago.
/DonorAnalysis
Sound promising but is summary data based on media markets.
/early
Early voting analysis.
/eday
Typical election voting analysis, from 2002 to 2008.
/FEC
Duplicates to FEC filings. Checking the .csv file, data from
2008. BTW, you can find this date (2008) and later data of the same type at:
http://fec.gov .
/finance
More duplicates to FEC filings. 11-26-08 NFC Members Raised.xlsx (no credit
cards) – Dated but 453 names with contacts, amounts raised, etc.
September 14th, 2016
Guccifer 2.0 dropped
a new bundle of DNC documents on September 13, 2016! Like most dumps, there
was no accompanying guide to make use of that dump easier.
Not a criticism, just an observation.
As a starting point to make your use of that dump a little easier, I am posting
an ls -lR listing of all the files in that dump, post extraction
with 7z and unrar .
Guccifer2.0-13Sept2016-filelist.txt .
I'm working on a list of the files most likely to be of interest. Look for
that tomorrow.
I can advise that no credit card numbers were included in this dump.
While selling public offices surprises some authors, whose names I omitted
out of courtesy to their families, selling offices is a regularized activity
in the United States.
Every four years, just after the Presidential election, " United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions " is published. It is commonly known as the "Plum Book" and is
alternately published between the House and Senate.
The Plum Book is a listing of over 9,000 civil service leadership and
support positions (filled and vacant) in the Legislative and Executive branches
of the Federal Government that may be subject to noncompetitive appointments,
or in other words by direct appointment.
These "plum" positions include agency heads and their immediate subordinates,
policy executives and advisors, and aides who report to these officials.
Many positions have duties which support Administration policies and programs.
The people holding these positions usually have a close and confidential
relationship with the agency head or other key officials.
Even though the 2012 "plum" book is currently on sale for $19.00 (usual price
is $38.00), given that a new one will appear later this year, consider using
the free online version at:
Plum Book 2012
.
The online interface is nothing to brag on. You have to select filters and
then find to obtain further information on positions. Very poor UI.
However, if under title you select "Chief of Mission, Monaco" and then select
"find," the resulting screen looks something like this:
To your far right there is a small arrow that if selected, takes you to the
details:
If you were teaching a high school civics class, the question would be:
How much did Charles Rivkin have to donate to obtain the position of Chief
of Mission, Monaco?
Monaco, bordering France on the Mediterranean coast, is a popular resort,
attracting tourists to its casino and pleasant climate. The principality
also is a banking center and has successfully sought to diversify into services
and small, high-value-added, nonpolluting industries.
Entering the name Rivkin, Charles and select "Get Listing."
Rivkin's contributions are broken into categories and helpfully summed to
assist you in finding the total.
Contributions to All Other Political Committees Except Joint Fundraising
Committees – $72399.00
Joint Fundraising Contributions – $22300.00
Recipient of Joint Fundraiser Contributions – $36052.00
Caution: There is an anomalous Rivkin in that last category, contributing
$40 to Donald Trump. For present discussions, I would subtract that from the
grand total of:
$130,711 to be the Chief of Mission, Monaco.
Realize that this was not a lump sum payment but a steady stream of contributions
starting in the year 2000.
Jane Hartley paid DNC $605,000 and then was nominated by Obama to serve
concurrently as the U.S. Ambassador to the French Republic and the Principality
of Monaco.
Contributions to Super PACs, Hybrid PACs and Historical Soft Money Party
Accounts – $5000.00
Contributions to All Other Political Committees Except Joint Fundraising
Committees – $516609.71
Joint Fundraising Contributions – $116000.00
Grand total: $637,609.71.
So, $637,609.71, not $605,000.00 but also as a series of contributions starting
in 1997, not one lump sum .
You don't have to search discarded hard drives to get pay-to-play appointment
pricing. It's all a matter of public record.
PS: I'm not sure how accurate or complete
Nominations & Appointments (White House) may be, but its an easier starting
place for current appointees than the online Plum book.
PPS: Estimated pricing for "Plum" book positions could be made more transparent.
Not a freebie. Let me know if you are interested.
"... What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their hefty donations, received cushy ambassadorships? ..."
"... You gotta remember, [neo]liberals love to justify bad behavior, by pointing to (often unrelated) ... bad behavior. ..."
"... Remember, when someone like David Duke endorses Donald Trump and Trump says, "Who is David Duke, and why should I care?" this proves Trump is a racist. When Hillary Clinton talks about how Robert Byrd was her "friend and mentor" this also proves that Trump is a racist. See how easy that is? ..."
"... So it's okay to give money to a private political organization in order to get favors from the government? Why don't we just auction off ambassadorships then? ..."
"... The last set of documents showed that the DNC broke campaign finance laws and yet absolutely nothing was done about it. Since any damning evidence in documents from democrats will be ignored, why do they even try? It won't make any difference. ..."
"... Under Obama's administration political considerations trump the law every time. ..."
For the past several months, the hacker who calls himself "Guccifer 2.0"
has been releasing documents about the Democratic National Committee. Today,
he has released a new hoard of documents. Politico reports: The hacker persona
Guccifer 2.0 has released a new trove of documents that allegedly reveal more
information about the Democratic National Committee's finances and personal
information on Democratic donors, as well as details about the DNC's network
infrastructure. The cache also includes purported memos on tech initiatives
from Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine's time as governor of Virginia,
and some years-old missives on redistricting efforts and DNC donor outreach
strategy. Most notable among Tuesday's documents may be the detailed spreadsheets
allegedly about DNC fundraising efforts, including lists of DNC donors with
names, addresses, emails, phone numbers and other sensitive details. Tuesday's
documents regarding the DNC's information technology setup include several reports
from 2010 purporting to show that the committee's network passed multiple security
scans.
In total, the latest dump contains more than 600 megabytes of documents.
It is the first Guccifer 2.0 release to not come from the hacker's WordPress
account. Instead, it was given out via a link to the small group of security
experts attending [a London cybersecurity conference].
meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:09AM (#52885111)
Journal
Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Informative)
What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their
hefty donations, received cushy ambassadorships?
Iconoc ( 2646179 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:12AM (#52885127)
Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @10:40AM
(#52885673) Journal
You gotta remember, [neo]liberals love to justify bad behavior, by
pointing to (often unrelated) ... bad behavior.
It is as if they are four year olds getting in trouble, and saying "but
Billy's Mom lets him drink beer/smoke dope". The problem is, nobody calls
it "childish" behavior (which it is), because that is insulting to children.
Zak3056 ( 69287 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @04:28PM (#52888579)
Journal
Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, when someone like David Duke endorses Donald Trump and
Trump says, "Who is David Duke, and why should I care?" this proves Trump
is a racist. When Hillary Clinton talks about how Robert Byrd was her "friend
and mentor" this also proves that Trump is a racist. See how easy that is?
Ambassadorships to friendly countries, the UK in particular, have always
been given as rewards to political friends. You could count the number of
people who became UK ambassador on merit on one hand which had been run
through a wood chipper.
The reason you didn't know about this before is because it never became
an issue. Tuttle made a bit of a kerfuffle a decade ago, but it takes a
lot to start a diplomatic incident with a close ally and being ambassador
to the UK or France or Australia really requires no great skill as a peacemaker.
If you were being particularly charitable, you could even say that fundraisers
and diplomats have a lot in common.
Everyone has plenty of dirty laundry, including you and me. 'Innocent
until proven guilty' is an excellent attitude in criminal court, but the
attitude 'innocent until doxxed' skews our perceptions and gives power to
doxxers. Honestly I'm a bit surprised these leaks haven't found more than
'omg, politics at political party!'
Remember, parties are not obligated to be democratic or unbiased. Legally
and constitutionally there's only one vote, the general election in November.
Anyone* can be nominated as a candidate for that election, and if both parties
decided to nominate whomever they pleased they might be breaking their own
rules but not the law. Everything up to and including the conventions is
just meant to give supporters a feel of involvement and to remove unpopular
candidates without invoking the wrath of their supporters. But the parties
want to win, and if one candidate seems more 'electable' you can bet the
party will give then a leg up on the rest.
meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @11:28AM (#52886055)
Journal
So it's okay to give money to a private political organization in
order to get favors from the government? Why don't we just auction off ambassadorships
then?
meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @02:02PM (#52887279)
Journal
There's been plenty of interesting stuff in previous releases of Hillary's
particular emails. I would say the most amazing was acknowledgment that
the reason we backed the moderate beheaders in Syria against Assad was so
the Israelis would feel better about a nuclear Iran without a stable Syria
as a base of operations for Hezbollah. The 400,000 war dead, the creation
of ISIS, the blowback attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, Brussels, Nice,
Orlando, and the refugee crisis that threatens to destabilize all of western
Europe...no problem for Hillary and her supporters. It's unreal. But here
we are.
Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:38AM (#52885273)
The last set showed laws broken by DNC (Score:5, Informative)
The last set of documents showed that the DNC broke campaign finance
laws and yet absolutely nothing was done about it. Since any damning evidence
in documents from democrats will be ignored, why do they even try? It won't
make any difference.
Now, if a similar trove of documents from the RNC was dumped, you can
bet the DOJ would be all over it. Under Obama's administration political
considerations trump the law every time.
"... Some of the other – possible – position purchases were a little disturbing, though, such as Julius Genachowski's FCC Chairmanship or Tony West's appointment as Deputy Attorney General. If true that donations were the clincher, then it does smell a little like corruption. ..."
"... In addition to Jim Haygood's report above I would flag Lee Fang's Twitter bulletin, which includes emails (you click on the actual emails imaged in the tweet to read the original) that reveal Colin Powell and Jeffrey Leeds discussing how much the Clintons hate Obama ("that man"), and how questionable Hillary's health is. This appears to be from a separate DNC Leaks hack of Powell's emails unrelated to the Guccifer 2.0 release. ..."
"... But the quote of the evening so far is from a Colin Powell email complaining about how Hillary is responsible for the whole email debacle at State and was trying to scapegoat him for her mess despite his protestations. Boy, was Powell pissed off, and to the point: " Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris. " ..."
I saw that too, earlier today and at first I thought "another example!".
Then I stepped back and realized that other than an inflation gauge,
so what? That has been a perk for donors in this country (and many other
I assume) for over 200 years… at least as far as the ambassadorships are
concerned.
Some of the other – possible – position purchases were a little disturbing,
though, such as Julius Genachowski's FCC Chairmanship or Tony West's appointment
as Deputy Attorney General. If true that donations were the clincher, then
it does smell a little like corruption.
I was away from the computer for a few hours and all leak-hell has broken
loose. Unfortunately, the actual dumps are not being made as easy to access
directly as in prior releases - the Guccifer 2.0 release requires a "torrent"
download and DNCLeaks.org seems to have been vaporized. And there's a lot
of it, so we're having to rely on piecemeal, secondhand reports at the moment.
In addition to Jim Haygood's report above I would flag Lee Fang's
Twitter bulletin, which includes emails (you click on the actual emails
imaged in the tweet to read the original) that reveal Colin Powell and Jeffrey
Leeds discussing how much the Clintons hate Obama ("that man"), and how
questionable Hillary's health is. This appears to be from a separate DNC
Leaks hack of Powell's emails unrelated to the Guccifer 2.0 release.
But the quote of the evening so far is from a Colin Powell email
complaining about how Hillary is responsible for the whole email debacle
at State and was trying to scapegoat him for her mess despite his protestations.
Boy, was Powell pissed off, and to the point: " Everything HRC touches
she kind of screws up with hubris. "
Now in view of recent Hillary health problems actions of Wasserman Schultz need
to be revisited. She somehow avoided criminal prosecution for interfering with the
election process under Obama administration. That's clearly wrong. The court
should investigate and determine the level of her guilt.
Moor did his duty, moor can go. This is fully applicable to Wasserman Schultz.
BTW it was king of "bait and switch" Obama who installed her in this position. And
after that some try to say that Obama is not a neocon. Essentially leaks mean is
that Sander's run was defeated by the Democratic Party's establishment dirty tricks
and Hillary is not a legitimate candidate. It's Mission Accomplished, once again.
"Clinton is a life-long Republican. She grew up in an all-white Republican suburb,
she supported Goldwater, and she supported Wall Street banking, then became a DINO
dildo to ride her husband's coattails to WH, until the NYC Mob traded her a NY Senator
seat for her husband's perfidy. She never said one word about re-regulating the
banks."
How could this anti-Russian hysteria/bashing go on in a normal country -- the
level of paranoia and disinformation about Russia and Putin is plain crazy even
for proto-fascist regimes.
Notable quotes:
"... Wasserman Schultz reluctantly agreed to relinquish her speaking role at the convention here, a sign of her politically fragile standing. ..."
"... Democratic leaders are scrambling to keep the party united, but two officials familiar with the discussions said Wasserman Schultz was digging in and not eager to vacate her post after the November elections. ..."
"... Sanders on Sunday told CNN's Jake Tapper the release of DNC emails that show its staffers working against him underscore the position he's held for months: Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to go. ..."
"... "I don't think she is qualified to be the chair of the DNC not only for these awful emails, which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people, and I don't think her leadership style is doing that," Sanders told Tapper ..."
"... But again, we discussed this many, many months ago, on this show, so what is revealed now is not a shock to me." ..."
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz will not
have a major speaking role or preside over daily convention proceedings this
week, a decision reached by party officials Saturday after emails surfaced raising
questions about the committee's impartiality during the Democratic primary.
The DNC Rules Committee on Saturday named Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, as permanent
chair of the convention, according to a DNC source. She will gavel each session
to order and will gavel each session closed.
"She's been quarantined," another top Democrat said of Wasserman Schultz,
following a meeting Saturday night. Wasserman Schultz faced intense pressure
Sunday to resign her post as head of the Democratic National Committee, several
party leaders told CNN, urging her to quell a growing controversy threatening
to disrupt Hillary Clinton's nominating convention.
Wasserman Schultz reluctantly agreed to relinquish her speaking role
at the convention here, a sign of her politically fragile standing. But
party leaders are now urging the Florida congresswoman to vacate her position
as head of the party entirely in the wake of leaked emails suggesting the DNC
favored Clinton during the primary and tried to take down Bernie Sanders by
questioning his religion. Democratic leaders are scrambling to keep the
party united, but two officials familiar with the discussions said Wasserman
Schultz was digging in and not eager to vacate her post after the November elections.
... ... ...
One email appears to show DNC staffers asking how they can reference Bernie
Sanders' faith to weaken him in the eyes of Southern voters. Another seems to
depict an attorney advising the committee on how to defend Hillary Clinton against
an accusation by the Sanders campaign of not living up to a joint fundraising
agreement.
Sanders on Sunday told CNN's Jake Tapper the release of DNC emails that
show its staffers working against him underscore the position he's held for
months: Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to go.
"I don't think she is qualified to be the chair of the DNC not only for
these awful emails, which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because
we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people, and I don't
think her leadership style is doing that," Sanders told Tapper on "State
of the Union," on the eve of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
"I am not an atheist," he said. "But aside from all of that, it is an outrage
and sad that you would have people in important positions in the DNC trying
to undermine my campaign. It goes without saying, the function of the DNC is
to represent all of the candidates -- to be fair and even-minded."
He added: "But again, we discussed this many, many months ago, on this
show, so what is revealed now is not a shock to me."
... ... ...
Several Democratic sources told CNN that the leaked emails are a big source
of contention and may incite tensions between the Clinton and Sanders camps
heading into the Democratic convention's Rules Committee meeting this weekend.
"It could threaten their agreement," one Democrat said, referring to the
deal reached between Clinton and Sanders about the convention, delegates and
the DNC. The party had agreed to include more progressive principles in its
official platform, and as part of the agreement, Sanders dropped his fight to
contest Wasserman Schultz as the head of the DNC.
"It's gas meets flame," the Democrat said.
Michael Briggs, a Sanders spokesman, had no comment Friday.
The issue surfaced on Saturday at Clinton's first campaign event with Tim
Kaine as her running mate, when a protester was escorted out of Florida International
University in Miami. The protester shouted "DNC leaks" soon after Clinton thanked
Wasserman Schultz for her leadership at the DNC.
"... Rile the masses up against the Commie Threat, as it worked so well in the 50's - 60's. Save us the expense of rewriting the playbook. Sure. Duck and cover. ..."
"... But the first place I would look is inside the DNC, if I were in charge. Russian intel releasing to wikileaks? Not much profit in that. ..."
"... By the way, whatever became of dearest FBI frontman Comey? ..."
"It might have well been an insider who copied the material and handed them to Wikileaks for publication"
Why this idea gets no traction, obviously -- without an admission of authenticity from DNC,
they have it both ways, the ability to ascribe guilt to Russia, and plausible deniability vis
a vis Sanders. Let's not rule out a purposeful leak as a gloating advertisement for DNC sponsors/donors,
or just as likely as a forgery using wikileaks as conduit for disinformation by anti-DNC ops.
The Guccifer blip is just as believable valid as any of these theories, upo.
Rile the masses up against the Commie Threat, as it worked so well in the 50's - 60's. Save
us the expense of rewriting the playbook. Sure. Duck and cover.
But the first place I would look is inside the DNC, if I were in charge. Russian intel releasing
to wikileaks? Not much profit in that.
By the way, whatever became of dearest FBI frontman Comey?
In view of the recent events the old question arise again: Was Hillary Clinton already on warafin when she suffered her latest fall?
Notable quotes:
"... Secretary Clinton was started on Coumadin, also known as warfarin. This medication significantly reduces - though it does not eliminate - the chance of a future blood clot. ..."
"... This extends to other facets of life; a simple fall that would be shook off by anyone else can give a patient on blood thinners a lethal brain bleed. The risks and benefits of anticoagulation must be weighed against the risk of a stroke if one does not use blood thinners; and is a choice for every patient to make with their physician. ..."
"... This does not include the possibility of an intracranial bleed, which could cause major cognitive disabilities without being lethal. ..."
"... There is a non-trivial possibility that Secretary Clinton will suffer a major bleed of some kind. ..."
"... Vamsi Aribindi is a medical student who blogs at the Medical Intellectual . ..."
Her
medical history includes two deep vein thromboses (DVTs) in 1998 and 2009,
as well as a cerebral venous sinus thrombosis in 2012. A thromboses is a clot;
basically, the formation of a solid plug inside a vein, a misfire of the body's
ability to plug holes and stop bleeding. While I could not find news articles
discussing the 2009 incident in further detail, the
1998 incident was a proximal DVT - one that had ascended into the popliteal
vein - an especially dangerous form of DVT that is most likely to cause a condition
called pulmonary embolus which can be fatal. A cerebral venous sinus thrombosis
is also a deadly condition, with a mortality of
approximately
10 percent and negative cognitive effects, though survivors make a good
recovery.
When anyone has multiple unprovoked clots, meaning there was no obvious reason
for the body to misfire it's clot formation system such as surgery or active
cancer, and especially when someone has a clot in an unusual location such as
the brain, an extensive workup is indicated to look for causes. Some such causes
include previously undetected cancers, inherited or random genetic disorders,
and autoimmune disorders. That workup was negative in Secretary Clinton's case,
per her doctor's letter. This is not unusual; there are many disorders that
we have not yet discovered, and in all likelihood Secretary Clinton's particular
clotting disorder happens to be one that has not yet been discovered.
When someone has such a clotting disorder, as a precaution patients are often
started on a medication to prevent the formation of clots. These medications
are known as anticoagulants or blood thinners. Secretary Clinton was started
on Coumadin, also known as warfarin. This medication significantly reduces -
though it does not eliminate - the chance of a future blood clot.
What is the side effect of blood thinners? A greater chance of bleeding and
greater difficulty stopping a bleed once it happens. An elderly patient on blood
thinners who is subsequently injured in a car crash is a nightmare for a trauma
team. This extends to other facets of life; a simple fall that would be
shook off by anyone else can give a patient on blood thinners a lethal brain
bleed. The risks and benefits of anticoagulation must be weighed against the
risk of a stroke if one does not use blood thinners; and is a choice for every
patient to make with their physician.
In Secretary Clinton's case, what is her risk of bleeding? Secretary Clinton
is over 65, and she has had multiple falls (in
2005, 2009, and 2011, and 2012); the 2009 fall resulting in a broken elbow
and the last one resulting in a concussion. According to
guidelines
put out by the American College of Chest Physicians, two risk factors puts her
in the category of high-risk patients, meaning her risk of bleeding while on
long-term anticoagulation is 6.5 percent per year. The mortality from a major
bleed is
approximately
10 percent. This does not include the possibility of an intracranial
bleed, which could cause major cognitive disabilities without being lethal.
What is Secretary Clinton's precise risk? It is difficult to say. She does
receive excellent medical care, and presumably has her dose of warfarin closely
monitored by many professionals. In addition, she may soon switch to newer anticoagulants
which are easier to take and dose than warfarin, though it is unclear if they
are truly any safer.
Ultimately, all that can be said is this: There is a non-trivial possibility
that Secretary Clinton will suffer a major bleed of some kind. The worst
possible scenario? Trump and Clinton are nominated, and Clinton suddenly suffers
a devastating bleed in the middle of the campaign, leaving a likely underqualified
vice presidential pick to try and fight Donald Trump. However, the risk of this
is likely small; and it is not as if 74-year-old Senator Bernie Sanders is free
of health risks either. Patients and doctors both hate uncertainty, and yet
we deal with it every day. I don't believe Secretary Clinton's increased risks
are anything that should disqualify her from the presidency, but they are certainly
something to ponder.
DNC is just a cesspool of neocon sharks. No decency whatsoever. What a bottom
feeders. Will Sanders supporters walk out ?
Notable quotes:
"... They made Craigslist posts on fake Trump jobs talking about women needing to be hot for the job and "maintain hotness" https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803 ..."
"... DNC and Hillary moles inside the Bernie campaign https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4776 ..."
"Hey Josh, since the Sanders camp keeps pushing stories about the money
laundering, we're prepping a Medium post from either our CFO or our CEO
we want to run by you. It will sharply state that the criticisms are wrong,
etc.. basically our talking points in a Medium post format with some extra
detail."
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4091
DWS on Bernie staying in the race in April: "Spoken like someone who
has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding
of what to do"
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5477 )
Calling someone a Bernie Bro for wanting to interview DWS about money
laundering, which they call "a shit topic". Asks for an interview next week
on another topic.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13319
Media Collaboration
"I think the best reporter to give the news to ahead of time is Greg
Sargent at the Washington Post. But, the specific reporter is not as important
as getting it to an outlet before the news breaks so we can help control
the narrative on the front"
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11242
More media collusion (Politico) "Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before
it goes to his editors as long as I didn't share it. Let me know if you
see anything that's missing and I'll push back." Thanks to
/u/PM_ME_OR_PM_ME
"-- Last night, Hillary attended two high-dollar fundraisers in New
York City. The first, from 6:15 p.m. to 7:45 p.m., was at the home of Maureen
White and Steven Rattner. Approximately 15 attendees contributed $100,000+
to attend. Then, from 8:15 p.m. to 9:45 p.m., she went to the home of Lynn
Forester de Rothschild. Another 15 people ponied up more than 100K to attend."
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/1238
"less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed
in the state parties' coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest
Federal Election Commission filing"
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/1724
Targeting Wall Street donors. Thanks
/u/Cygnus_X
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/998
More info: "One big Clinton donor on Wall Street said that Bush donors
are prime targets and that 'we're a big tent.' Potential sources of support
for Clinton could include people like Jack Oliver, who also served as a
top fundraiser for Jeb Bush. Both Johnson and Oliver did not respond to
requests for comment.The race for Wall Street cash will be intense."-
/u/Cygnus_X
Personal note: honestly this feels like browsing a bunch of high school
girls' emails. "Is there a fuck you emoji", "bahahaha", someone links to
round of applause by lady gaga.
Tons of media manipulation.
Also, kinda feel bad for Bernie supporters now. The system, like trump
mentioned in his speech, was against you completely.
The real question is whether the email are authentic or not. They are.
Neoliberal propaganda honchos just decided to use a smoke screen to conceal this
fact using Russia as a bogeyman.
Russian might be guilty of many things, but in no way it is
responsible for corruption of DNC and this subversive actions/covert operations
used for installing Hillary Clinton as a candidate from the Democratic Party. .
Notable quotes:
"... Is it OK to cheat, lie and deceive - as Clintons and DNC did - and then defend themselves by saying that "nobody would know, if it wasn't for those damn Russians"? Even the idea is preposterous: how we find out about this corruption is irrelevant, the point is there was corruption and cheating. ..."
"... So the DNC is trying to Blame Russia for their own corrupt actions. ..."
"... [Under Clintons] democracy has become conspiracy ..."
"... Are you constipated? Blame it on Russia. ..."
"... Oh and blaming Russia for revealing the truth. The truth was not attacked, but who revealed the truth is suddenly the bad guy. So desperate and out of sorts. :) ..."
"... There's no proof, besides an unsourced article in the Washington Post form 'security experts', that Russia had anything to do with this. What we do know is that immediately after the leaks became public various news outlets produced obviously planted hit pieces claiming some kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin, and again with precisely zero evidence as back up. It's gob smacking that the Clinton campaign would risk an international incident with a nuclear power to cover for their shitty behaviour, but then again it's Hillary Clinton so perhaps not. ..."
"... It may indeed be Russian hackers who gained access to the emails which confirm the DNC was all along in the tank for Clinton, and was actively placing a thumb on the scale from day one in the primary process. ..."
"... But the bottom line here is that if the DNC had not so conspired, there would be no emails to leak, now would there? For Mook and others to now be placing blame on the hackers, rather than on those who produced the embarrassing material that the hackers exposed, is diversionary and inexcusable. ..."
"... The funniest thing is, they don't even deny the authenticity of the emails. Basically, DNC says that someone is guilty of revealing the truth. You can hardly stoop any lower. Blaming Russia is just a cherry on the cake. ..."
"... How nice to have an eternal scapegoat: TheRussiansAreComing!TheRussiansAreComing! This will obviously be RodHam's theme as President. Perhaps to the point of annihilation. Neo-Conne! ..."
"... My biggest issue with Hillary from the start has been her continued nonchalance when it comes to matters of national security. She acts as if she is above the need to keep sensitive information safe from potential enemies, both foreign and domestic. That's a pretty scary attitude coming from someone who is likely to be this nation's next leader. ..."
"... It's amazing. Caught red handed and still deflecting. Take responsibility for Christ sak ..."
"... ".....Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Clinton's rival, Bernie Sanders, and his campaign as the primary season advanced, in one instance even floating bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize his support. ..."
"... The more interesting part is that this blame is just a distraction from the larger issue, that the entire political system is corrupted and broken. This is just business as usual, only this instance was revealed. ..."
I honestly can't wait for when the pro-clinron commentors arrive. I can
see it now "this doesn't matter if you vote 3rd party you're voting for
trump." It won't matter that this is all the fault of the DNC, it will be
on us. I'm calling it now ;)
Is it OK to cheat, lie and deceive - as Clintons and DNC did - and then
defend themselves by saying that "nobody would know, if it wasn't for those
damn Russians"? Even the idea is preposterous: how we find out about this
corruption is irrelevant, the point is there was corruption and cheating.
Interestingly, this is a favorite defense of all authoritarians. They
always claim that if it benefits the "enemy", it is ok to suppress it. Stalin
had a concept of "objectively aiding the enemy" - it meant that maybe the
person was not a conscious traitor, but his/her actions helped the enemy
- and that was enough. Is Guardian and Clintons now marching down this road
of extreme "us versus them" ideology?
What's is next? Will Clintons ban Bernie from speaking because it would
"aid Trump"? (and by extension in their paranoid thinking, it would aid
Russia).
"Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling
us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and
are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
So the DNC is trying to Blame Russia for their own corrupt actions.
Another reason on the list as to why I won't be voting for Hillary. Why
did DNC act very anti-democratic?
A vote for Hillary is a vote for continued corruption.
Rather than blaming they ought to be taking responsibility for their own
words. But they'd have to be adults with integrity to do that. The tragedy
and travesty of it is the willful, routine, nonchalant effort to subvert
the Constitution and the will of the people. These kinds of machinations
have always gone on within both parties and should always be exposed. The
SuperPACS, the dark money, the secret maneuverings, the totally broken primary
system, all designed to stop our having our say. People elsewhere often
wonder about "our" choices for the White House. Now they can see how much
of that free choice has been wrested away over time, and how imperative
it is that we ordinary people start working on positive change within the
elective system. In my opinion all the DNC participants should lose their
jobs and be made to cool their heels in jail a while, because without consequences
we may as well just burn the Constitution and Bill of Rights right now and
be done with it, for all the respect these documents are given by our politicians.
What a revolting mess it all is on both sides, with ordinary people the
losers, as always.
Oh and blaming Russia for revealing the truth. The truth was not attacked,
but who revealed the truth is suddenly the bad guy. So desperate and out
of sorts. :)
There's no proof, besides an unsourced article in the Washington Post form
'security experts', that Russia had anything to do with this. What we do
know is that immediately after the leaks became public various news outlets
produced obviously planted hit pieces claiming some kind of collusion between
the Trump campaign and Putin, and again with precisely zero evidence as
back up. It's gob smacking that the Clinton campaign would risk an international
incident with a nuclear power to cover for their shitty behaviour, but then
again it's Hillary Clinton so perhaps not.
A big part of the problem is that Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) is still
in her position. If the Democratic Party place a value on performance, she
should have been fired after the 2014 mid-terms.
Part of the problem is that the DNC is too closely aligned with the interests
of one political family. Competence and other considerations count for a
lot less than loyalty. DWS kept her position because of the ties to Clinton
and Clintons donors, not because she did a good job and grew the party.
The opposite has happened.
Frankly, Obama bears some degree of responsibility for this because he's
the one who canned Howard Dean, who actually had a track record of success
at winning elections and growing the party through two election cycles.
Instead Obama replaced him with a guy like Tim Kaine, who wasn't up to the
task either. Dean also did a good job of navigating the very difficult 2008
election. Kaine and DWS did poorly in the capacity as DNC Chair.
As president, Obama has done a lot right. But his neglect of the DNC
is part of his legacy, and it isn't a good one.
That's nice that those damn Russians 'stole' their email. However, those
damn Russians didn't write them. I dislike and distrust Hillary and DWS
more now that I did a week ago, and that takes some doing. Hillary is Nixon.
Paranoid. Dishonest. Devious.
how in the name of god can the overly compensated chairwoman of the democratic
party conspire against a candidate supported by nearly half of democratic
primary voters ???
Kaine is in the same boat as Clinton on the TPP - the Good Ship Hypocrite.
Both hope like hell that TPP gets passed in the lame duck so they can make
a show of being against it to gain some progressive cred. If Obama and his
colleagues Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan can't get TPP done before his term
ends, Clinton and Kaine's reservations re TPP will disappear faster than
a snowflake in July. It's like Clinton's about face on the Keystone pipeline
- she got a heads up from Obama that he wasn't going to approve it anyway,
so she came out against it.
I love the irony of the comment from the Clinton Campaign..... '' This is
further evidence the Russian Government is trying to influence the outcome
of an election ''.
Heavens forbid that the USA would ever stoop so low as to try and influence
the outcome of other Countries elections !!!
It of course being totally above Americians to indulge such devious behaviour
.
Very true, and Hillary was happy to support the violent Honduras coup of
an elected government and still very much supports that new violent regime.
And the new regime is very friendly to western big corporate 'interests'.
Of course. Hillary is old-school.
Doesn't matter who did it, the Russians, Anonymous, Edward Snowden. The
point is that the DNC is revealed as partisan and rigged. In addition to
minimizing her role at the convention, I believe Wasserman Schultz should
be dumped from any position of leadership, along with other DNC leaders.
No wonder people are fed up with politics as usual.
"Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling
us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and
are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
And Mook is the expert who whispered that lie in his own ear.
Great photo, Mook the Spook, her lover, a few bigtime aids. They got
caught like Nixon's plumbers at Watergate. So they would like to blame the
Russians for their writing calumnies and antiSemitic slanders against Sanders.
They look pretty stupid!
Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling us that Russian state
actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and are] releasing these
emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
It may indeed be Russian hackers who gained access to the emails which confirm
the DNC was all along in the tank for Clinton, and was actively placing
a thumb on the scale from day one in the primary process.
Sanders knew it, and we as his supporters also knew it and made reference
to that very issue repeatedly in countless comment threads here at the Guardian
and elsewhere.
But the bottom line here is that if the DNC had not so conspired,
there would be no emails to leak, now would there?
For Mook and others to now be placing blame on the hackers, rather than
on those who produced the embarrassing material that the hackers exposed,
is diversionary and inexcusable.
The Clinton campaign is moving closer and closer to blowing this election
completely and allowing the most dangerous candidacy I've ever seen in my
lifetime actually win this thing.
They've already selected a VP pick which effectively thumbs their nose
at the very progressives whose enthusiasm they will need at the voting booths,
and now here they are trying to deflect blame for unconscionable skullduggery
in the primary process onto foreign actors.
Debbie Wassermann Schultz should have been fired long ago, so blatant and
obvious were her shenanigans.
This kind of tone-deaf ineptitude could see all of us paying an unimaginable
price in November. All it will take at this point is a few more mass shootings
(at which we here in the US have a particular talent) to feed into Trump's
narrative and we'll all be waking up in January in a country we don't even
recognize.
The funniest thing is, they don't even deny the authenticity of the
emails. Basically, DNC says that someone is guilty of revealing the truth.
You can hardly stoop any lower. Blaming Russia is just a cherry on the cake.
Just saw Bernie on CNN basically saying the Nr1 priority is to defeat D.
Trump, then keep fighting the good fight from within the Democratic Party
trying to reform it from within.
A big thing he misses here that the top honcho Mrs Hillary Clinton is one
of the main reasons of what the Democratic Party has become. She will be
a huge obstruction to anything resembling reform. You might as well pack
up and go 3rd party and show the Dems that way what American voters want.
4 years of Trump might actually be a lot better to shake up the corrupt
DNC then 4-8 years of Hillary and who knows how many years of Republicans
2 follow (and believe me, Hillary will do a lot of damage to the democratic
brand!)
Clinton is desperate to lurk voters by anything, then let it be those Russians
that hacked her mail. A Russian proverb to the point - "A bad dancer always
blames his balls that hamper him".
If they'd backed off, allowed their MSM protectors to bury the story, this
whole thing would have died down in a week. A few angry Bernie Bros notwithstanding
there's nothing in the emails that we didn't know already. Yes the DNC and
the Hillary Clinton campaign were one and the same....shock! Yes sections
of the corporate owned media are colluding with the Democratic Party....wowsers!!
But no, they couldn't help themselves. Now we've got the Democratic nominee
for the Presidency alleging, with zero proof, that her opponent is engaged
in a conspiracy to commit criminal acts with a foreign power! Seriously
who thought this was a good idea?
How nice to have an eternal scapegoat: TheRussiansAreComing!TheRussiansAreComing!
This will obviously be RodHam's theme as President. Perhaps to the point
of annihilation. Neo-Conne!
My biggest issue with Hillary from the start has been her continued nonchalance
when it comes to matters of national security. She acts as if she is above
the need to keep sensitive information safe from potential enemies, both
foreign and domestic. That's a pretty scary attitude coming from someone
who is likely to be this nation's next leader.
Putin ate my homework (TM). What Debbie and the gang did is worse, much worse than this sorry article
tries to portray. For example, what sort of Democratic Party tries to use Bearnie's religion
agsinst him ?!?
".....Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including
Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Clinton's
rival, Bernie Sanders, and his campaign as the primary season advanced,
in one instance even floating bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize
his support.
****"It might may [sic] no difference, but for KY and WA can we get someone
to ask his belief," Brad Marshall, CFO of DNC, wrote in an email on May
5, 2016. "Does he believe in God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish
heritage.
I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with
my peeps. My southern baptist peeps woudl draw a big difference between
a Jew and an atheist."****
"Amy Dacey, CEO of the DNC, subsequently responded "AMEN," according
to the email"
The more interesting part is that this blame is just a distraction from
the larger issue, that the entire political system is corrupted and broken.
This is just business as usual, only this instance was revealed.
Has anyone here worked, I mean truly worked in the pre-election process,
behind the scenes, witnessing the dirty business that is gathering electoral
votes during caucuses and primaries? It is a total sham. It is where under-the-table
deals are made for promised loyalties to certain candidates, where those
that have the most, bribe others to vote a certain way, where quid pro quo
rules over democracy or a candidates stance on issues and/or policies. It
is where future cabinet positions are secured, based on allegiance to party
hierarchy and strong-arming. Your vote means nothing, only a small select
group determines candidates, and ultimately the president.
DNC Chair Wasserman is just one cog in a massive political machine, one
run rampantly out of control. And this happens on both sides, among both
parties. It is where the personal selfish love of money, power, and fame
outstrip the will of the people.
Long live hackers for keeping a check on an obviously corrupted system.
The mainstream media isn't doing their jobs anymore, someone has to. The
media have merely become the pretorian band for the super class, those elite
that truly control this country from behind the scenes, pulling the puppet
strings attached to the soulless politicians.
We are again presented with two candidates whom have each proven their
desire to negate the will of the nation, for purely selfish reasons. Neither
is truly qualified for this office.
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought
to trust no [hu]man living with the power to endanger the public liberty".
-John Adams-
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more
corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters"
-Ben Franklin-
"... Look over there! Putin is all over the place these days, he is doing Brexit, supporting Trump, and Corbyn I think, he is hacking Hillary, wow. ..."
Look over there! Putin is all over the place these days, he is doing
Brexit, supporting Trump, and Corbyn I think, he is hacking Hillary, wow.
And he still has time to ride horses and play with tigers and invade
Europe. I see why he is popular.
But it's nice to be Russian, I like Russia, it's a beautiful country.
Until now the Bernie people were all sexists, racists, privileged homeless
idiots who lived in basements, but now we are Russians. Much better. See
that's the Hillary outreach to the bros.
Heh, maybe some of us figure the wrath beats the alternative to sitting
through another presidential cycle of sternly worded letters and petitions
from the left.
*sigh*
It would be so much easier if I could get an HMO approved frontal lobotomy
than I could either join the GOp lynch mob who thinks everything is some
liberal plot or be hunky dory with representation that tells you to your
face that they've rigged the system to thwart you ever actually having an
individual that you actually want representing you.
They lost... Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was re-elected.
Notable quotes:
"... Tad Devine, Mark Longabaugh, and Julian Mulvey, who helped lead Sanders' campaign and drove his highly acclaimed media presence, will help Democrat Tim Canova's campaign in the closing days of his race against Wasserman Schultz in South Florida, where congressional primaries will be held Aug. 30. ..."
"... While Wasserman Schultz is still the favorite in her race, people aligned with Sanders have seized on Canova's candidacy as a proxy for their disapproval of Wasserman Schultz's stewardship of the DNC, pouring money into his effort. The addition of DML signals an increasing professionalization of the anti-Wasserman Schultz effort. ..."
The consulting firm that made Bernie Sanders' ads in the 2016 presidential race
is going to work for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's primary challenger.
Tad Devine, Mark Longabaugh, and Julian Mulvey, who helped lead Sanders'
campaign and drove his highly acclaimed media presence, will help Democrat Tim
Canova's campaign in the closing days of his race against Wasserman Schultz
in South Florida, where congressional primaries will be held Aug. 30.
It's the latest move from Sanders supporters to go after Wasserman Schultz,
after their outrage stemming from leaked emails drove her to resign as chairman
of the Democratic National Committee this week.
The move is a concrete step forward in Sanders' attempt to spread his "political
revolution" after the end of his presidential campaign and another boost to
Canova, a previously little-known law professor who has raised millions of dollars
for his run against Wasserman Schultz. It's also the first tangible sign of
heavier involvement from his political circles in down-ballot races between
now and November. Sanders had previously endorsed Canova and raised money online
for him and a selection of other congressional candidates.
While Wasserman Schultz is still the favorite in her race, people aligned
with Sanders have seized on Canova's candidacy as a proxy for their disapproval
of Wasserman Schultz's stewardship of the DNC, pouring money into his effort.
The addition of DML signals an increasing professionalization of the anti-Wasserman
Schultz effort.
The consultants' firm, Devine Mulvey Longabaugh, was behind spots like the
famous "America" ad that helped define Sanders' campaign as he rose to prominence
against Hillary Clinton, and it has worked for a wide range of down-ballot campaigns
this cycle. Canova's campaign was already working with Revolution Messaging,
Sanders' digital firm, as well.
"When the Democratic National Committee announced its $32 million fundraising
haul last month, it touted the result as evidence of 'energy and excitement'
for Hillary Clinton's nomination for the White House and other races down the
ballot. The influx of money, however, also owes in part to an unprecedented
workaround of political spending limits that lets the party tap into millions
of dollars more from Clinton's wealthiest donors" [
Bloomberg ]. "At least $7.3 million of the DNC's July total originated with
payments from hundreds of major donors who had already contributed the maximum
$33,400 to the national committee, a review of Federal Election Commission filings
shows. The contributions, many of which were made months earlier, were first
bundled by the Hillary Victory Fund and then transferred to the state Democratic
parties, which effectively stripped the donors' names and sent the money to
the DNC as a lump sum. Of the transfers that state parties made to the DNC for
which donor information was available, an overwhelming proportion came from
contributions from maxed-out donors."
Lovely. Doubling down on the Victory Fund scam. Word of the day: Effrontery.
Re: Clintons campaign possible strategy of making a vote for Clinton
'a vote for a winner'.
I know its conventional opinion that when in doubt, people prefer to
vote for who they perceive to be a 'winner', but I wonder if this really
applies with two such disliked candidates. I've a theory that one reason
Brexit won is that the polls beforehand saying it would be a narrow 'no',
gave 'permission' for people to vote with their conscience rather than their
pragmatism. In other words, presented with a 'pragmatic, but dirty' vote
for X, but a 'fun, but risky' vote for Y', people will vote X if its very
close or it looks like Y will win, but may be tempted to vote Y if they
are pretty sure X will win.
Part of me thinks the Clinton campaign would have tested the theory to
the limit before going for a strategy like this, but the evidence from the
nomination campaign is that they are all tactics, no strategy. It seems
to me to be a very risky game to play, not least because promoting Clinton
as a sure winner may make wavering progressives simply opt to stay at home.
I don't even think you have to be a progressive for that to be a concern
if you are the Clinton campaign.
They know the public is not enthusiastic about voting for her for the most
part, and yet they are setting up a meme where she is unbeatable. It isn't
necessarily going to just keep Trump voters home. But how many people who
don't want Clinton but really don't want Trump will be able to convince
themselves that there is no need to go hold their nose and vote for her.
Republicans who think she is too far left, but he is crazy for instance
will be just as likely to stay home as the lefties who know she is lying
Neoliberal War Criminal, but not fascist like Trump. (And I know the real
fascism signs are all with Clinton, but some may have missed it).
On fascism I had the exact same thought after reading Adolph Reeds "Vote
For the Lying, NeoLiberal War-Monger, It's Important" link last week.
Reed's critique was that communist leader Thallman failed to anticipate
Hitler's liquidation of all opposition, but frankly with Hillary's and Donald's
respective histories its hard for me to see how Trump is more dangerous
on this: Hillary has a deep and proven lethal track record and wherever
she could justify violent action in the past she has, she keeps an enemies
list, holds grudges and acts on them, all thoroughly documented.
I certainly won't speculate that Trump couldn't do the same or worse,
given the state of our propaganda and lawlessness amongst the elite, but
like all the other negatives in this campaign its hard to ascertain who
really will be worse. Lambert's bet on gridlock in a Trump administration
has the further advantage of re-activating the simulation of "anti-war,
anti-violence" amongst Dem nomenklatura.
We have collectively known Donald Trump and much of his family for the
last 30 or 40 years. Over the years, he has evoked different emotions in
me. (Usually being appalled by his big-city, realestate tycoon posturing
etc). However, I have never been frightened by him. To
me, he is more like a bombastic, well loved, show-off uncle.
Today I see Trump as a modern day prophet (spiritual teacher). A bringer
of light (clarity) to the masses. We live in a rigged system that gives
Nobel Peace Prizes to mass murderers; that charges a poor child $600 for
a $1 lifesaving Epipen. Trump is waking up The People. Finalllyyyyyy!!
In my experience, people usually do not change for the better as they
age. However, it does happen!; peasant girl (Joan of Arc), patent inspector
(Einstein)
It's not about what Trump will or won't do. It's about not handing all
three branches of government over to the GOP, which has the Libertarian
agenda of eliminating said government altogether. I find it interesting
that so many people scornful of identity politics nevertheless seem to be
as addicted as anyone to making this a horse race between two candidates
that has no real far-reaching consequences beyond with each will or won't
do in the Oval Office.
So true: "My view is that triumphalism from the Clinton campaign - which
now includes most of the political class, including the press and both party
establishments, and ignores event risk - is engineered to get early voters
to "go with the winner."–Lambert
I have noticed on Google News several "Clinton weighing cabinet choices"
articles, to me there is whistling past the graveyard quality to all this.
They want the election over now-the votes are just a formality.
They really really do not have any short term memory do they? I mean
it took sticking both thumbs on the scale and some handy dandy shenanigans
with voters to get her past the Primary finish line. And her opponent there
was much nicer about pointing out her flaws than her current opponent. It
is true they won't have any obvious elections that disprove their position
out there, but when you are spending millions and your opponent nothing
and he is still within the margin of error with you in the states that people
are watching the closest…
Although that isn't considering the fears of what other shoes have to
drop both in the world and in the news that could derail her victory parade,
they may have more to fear from that.
One of the problems Democrats have and the 50 state strategy addressed
is voting in very Democratic precincts. Without constant pressure, many
proud Democrats won't vote because they don't know any Republicans. It's
in the bag. College kids are the worst voters alive. They will forget come
election day or not be registered because they moved. Dean squeezed these
districts. These districts are where Democrats , out in 2010 and 2014 and
even a little in 2012. Mittens is a robber baron.
If Democratic turnout is low and Hillary wins with crossover votes, what
happens? It's very likely those Republicans vote for down ticket Republicans.
Even for the people who have to vote against Trump, if they believe he is
a special kind of super fascist will they bother to vote for the allies
of a crook such as Hillary? It's possible Hillary wins and drops a seat
in the Senate depending on turnout.
I think it's clear Hillary isn't going to bring out any kind of voter
activism. Judging from photos in Virginia where one would hope a commanding
Hillary victory could jump start the Democrats for next year's governors
and legislative races, the Democratic Party is dead or very close to it.
What if Hillary wins but does the unthinkable and delivers a Republican
pickup in the Senate? She needs to keep Republicans from coming out because
she isn't going to drive Democratic turnout to a spot where that can win
on its own.
Hillary needs to win to keep the never Trump crowd in the GOP from voting
because she knows the Democratic side which relies on very Democratic districts
and transient voters will not impress. An emboldened GOP congress will be
a tough environment for Hillary, and GOP voters won't tolerate bipartisanship
especially for anyone suspected of not helping the party 100%. Those House
Republicans have to face 2018 and the smaller but arguably more motivated
electorate. They will come down hard on Hillary if she can't win the Senate
which a literal donkey could do.
Hell I don't want Clinton to win by any margin. But if anyone thinks
that the bipartisan nature of her possible victory will mean anything but
Republicans hunting her scalp, and dare I say getting it, they are not paying
attention. As much as both the Benghazi and the email thing has them all
flummoxed because the real crimes involved with both are crimes they either
agree with or want to use. The Foundation on the other hand, not so much,
they will make the case that this is a global slush fund because it is.
And the McDonnell decision is not going to save her Presidency, much as
it would if she were indicted in a Court.
I should add, that is with or without winning the Senate. Much of the
loyalty any Dems there have towards her will disappear when it is obvious
that she keeps most of the money AND has no coattails. Oh, they might not
vote to impeach her, but that is about it.
Hillary's only defense is to win the Senate and to be able to stifle
investigations through the appearance of a mandate. 2018 is the 2012 cycle,
and that is 2006 which should be a good year for the Republicans (a credit
to Howard Dean). It's a tough map for Team Blue. If they don't win the Senate
in November, they won't win it in 2018.
With 2018 on its way, a weak Democratic situation will make the Democrats
very jumpy as Hillary is clearly not delivering the coattails they imagined.
She isn't going to have a mandate. Oh, the electoral college count might
look good. But regardless of who wins this sucker, I'm betting this is going
to be one of the lowest, if not the lowest, voter turnout for any Presidential
election in the last century. I would not be surpised if more people stay
home than vote. And that is not a mandate.
The Senate isn't going to stifle investigations. She doesn't even have
to help the Dems get a majority for that problem of conviction if impeached
to rear its ugly head. No way is there going to be 2/3 of the Senate in
one party or the other. That still won't stop the House. Just as it didn't
for her husband.
I know it is a bit picky of me, but I am getting really tired of Democrats
trying to take the high road on immigration. It ignores that our current
Democratic President has deported more 'illegal' immigrants than any previous
President before him. In 2014 he deported nine times more people than had
been deported twenty years earlier. Some years it was nearly double the
numbers under George W. Bush. And yes, I know it was not strict fillibuster
proof majority in the Senate for his first two years, but damn close and
the only thing we got was a half assed stimulus made up largely of tax stimulus
AND that gift to for profit medicine and insurance, the ACA. With all their
concern, couldn't the Democrats have made some token stab at immigration
reform? Instead there has been a huge gift to the for profit prison operators
who now count their immigration detention centers as their biggest profit
centers.
Trump says mean things, but the Democrats, well once again actions should
speak louder than words but it isn't happening.
The Dems want to have their cake and eat it too. They want cheap labor
and they want virtue. They sell out my friends and neighbors and think themselves
noble for empowering foreign nationals.
I guess this is one way for a supposedly pro-labor party to liquidate
its working class elements.
"... The violation of norms was similar, but Tom DeLay invented his scheme as a way of strengthening his Party and making it more powerful in Congress, which was kinda his job, and he was quite successful in adding Republicans to the Texas delegation. ..."
"... Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn't just violating the norms; she was trying to weaken her Party, draining away resources to the Clinton campaign that they had no legitimate claim to from parts of the Party that needed those resources. And, it is part of a pattern of leadership action to weaken the Party. (Patrick Murphy, her hand-picked candidate for U.S. Senate from Florida is exhibit one.) ..."
"... I think it is fair and accurate to describe the HVF transfer arrangements as a means of circumventing campaign financing limits and using the State parties to subsidize the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of [June], the fund had brought in $142 million, . . . 44 percent [to] DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), . . . state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee - or only 0.56 percent. ..."
"... Beyond the transfers, much of the fund's $42 million in direct spending also appears to have been done to directly benefit the Clinton campaign, as opposed to the state parties ..."
"... The fund has paid $4.1 million to the Clinton campaign for "salary and overhead expenses" to reimburse it for fundraising efforts. And it has directed $38 million to vendors such as direct marketing company Chapman Cubine Adams + Hussey and digital consultant Bully Pulpit Interactive - both of which also serve the Clinton campaign - for mailings and online ads that sometimes closely resemble Clinton campaign materials. ..."
Wasn't Tom DeLay indicted and driven from Congress over a similar sort
of money shuffle?
The violation of norms was similar, but Tom DeLay invented his scheme
as a way of strengthening his Party and making it more powerful in Congress,
which was kinda his job, and he was quite successful in adding Republicans
to the Texas delegation.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn't just violating the norms; she was
trying to weaken her Party, draining away resources to the Clinton campaign
that they had no legitimate claim to from parts of the Party that needed
those resources. And, it is part of a pattern of leadership action to weaken
the Party. (Patrick Murphy, her hand-picked candidate for U.S. Senate from
Florida is exhibit one.)
bruce wilder 08.03.16 at 1:08 am
Layman @ 79
I am not interested in a prolonged back and forth, but I will lay out
a bare outline of facts. I do not find much support for your characterization
of these arrangements, which give new meaning to the fungibility of funds.
I think it is fair and accurate to describe the HVF transfer arrangements
as a means of circumventing campaign financing limits and using the State
parties to subsidize the Clinton campaign. Court rulings have made
aggregate fund raising legal and invites this means of circumventing the
$2700 limit on individual Presidential campaign donations. Whether the circumvention
is legal - whether it violates the law to invite nominal contributions to
State Parties of $10,000 and channel those contributions wholly to operations
in support of Clinton, while leaving nothing in State Party coffers is actually
illegal, I couldn't say; it certainly violates the norms of a putative joint
fundraising effort. It wasn't hard for POLITICO to find State officials
who said as much. The rest of this comment quotes POLITICO reports dated
July 2016.
Hillary Victory Fund, which now includes 40 state Democratic Party committees,
theoretically could accept checks as large as $436,100 - based on the individual
limits of $10,000 per state party, $33,400 for the DNC, and $2,700 for Clinton's
campaign.
Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end
of [June], the fund had brought in $142 million, . . . 44 percent [to] DNC
($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), . . . state parties
have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee
- or only 0.56 percent.
. . . state parties have received $7.7 million in transfers, but within
a few days of most transfers, almost all of the cash - $6.9 million - was
transferred to the DNC . . .
The only date on which most state parties received money from the victory
fund and didn't pass any of it on to the DNC was May 2, the same day that
POLITICO published an article exposing the arrangement.
Beyond the transfers, much of the fund's $42 million in direct spending
also appears to have been done to directly benefit the Clinton campaign,
as opposed to the state parties.
The fund has paid $4.1 million to the Clinton campaign for "salary
and overhead expenses" to reimburse it for fundraising efforts. And it has
directed $38 million to vendors such as direct marketing company Chapman
Cubine Adams + Hussey and digital consultant Bully Pulpit Interactive -
both of which also serve the Clinton campaign - for mailings and online
ads that sometimes closely resemble Clinton campaign materials.
"... WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday floated a theory that the Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead in the streets of Washington last month had been targeted because the operative was an informant. ..."
"... In an interview on Dutch television, the Australian cyberactivist invoked the unsolved killing of Seth Rich, 27, earlier this summer to illustrate the risks of being a source for his organization. Citing WikiLeaks protocol, Assange refused to confirm whether or not Rich was in fact a source for WikiLeaks, which has released thousands of internal DNC emails, some of them politically embarrassing. Experts and U.S. government officials reportedly believe that hackers linked to the Russian government infiltrated the DNC and gave the email trove to WikiLeaks. ..."
"... The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington has not established a motive for the killing but reportedly told the young man's family that he likely died during a robbery attempt turned tragic. His father, however, told Omaha CBS-affiliate KMTV he did not think it was a robbery because nothing was stolen: his watch, money, credit cards and phone were still with him. ..."
"... The WikiLeaks founder said that others have suggested that Rich was killed for political reasons and that his organization is investigating the incident. ..."
"... "I think it is a concerning situation. There isn't a conclusion yet. We wouldn't be able to state a conclusion, but we are concerned about it," he continued. "More importantly, a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when that kind of thing happens." ..."
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday floated a theory that the
Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead in the streets of Washington
last month had been targeted because the operative was an informant.
In an interview on Dutch television, the Australian cyberactivist invoked
the unsolved killing of Seth Rich, 27, earlier this summer to illustrate the
risks of being a source for his organization.
Citing WikiLeaks protocol, Assange refused to confirm whether or not Rich
was in fact a source for WikiLeaks, which has released thousands of internal
DNC emails, some of them politically embarrassing. Experts and U.S. government
officials reportedly believe that hackers linked to the Russian government infiltrated
the DNC and gave the email trove to WikiLeaks.
But Assange was apparently interested in hinting about an even darker theory.
"Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often very
significant risks. There's a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, who was shot in
the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking
down the street in Washington," Assange said on Nieuwsuur. BuzzFeed drew more
attention to the interview in the U.S.
Somewhat startled, news anchor Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal said, "That was
just a robbery, I believe - wasn't it?"
"No, there's no finding," Assange responded. "I'm suggesting that our sources
take risks, and they become concerned to see things occurring like that."
"Why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?"
van Rosenthal asked.
"Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States,"
Assange said, "and that our sources face serious risks. That's why they come
to us, so we can protect their anonymity."
The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington has not established a motive
for the killing but reportedly told the young man's family that he likely died
during a robbery attempt turned tragic. His father, however, told Omaha CBS-affiliate
KMTV he did not think it was a robbery because nothing was stolen: his watch,
money, credit cards and phone were still with him.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday floated a theory that the Democratic
National Committee staffer who was shot dead in the streets of Washington last
month had been targeted because the operative was an informant.
In an interview on Dutch television, the Australian cyberactivist invoked
the unsolved killing of Seth Rich, 27, earlier this summer to illustrate the
risks of being a source for his organization.
Citing WikiLeaks protocol, Assange refused to confirm whether or not Rich
was in fact a source for WikiLeaks, which has released thousands of internal
DNC emails, some of them politically embarrassing. Experts and U.S. government
officials reportedly believe that hackers linked to the Russian government infiltrated
the DNC and gave the email trove to WikiLeaks.
But Assange was apparently interested in hinting about an even darker theory.
"Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often very
significant risks. There's a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, who was shot in
the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking
down the street in Washington," Assange said on Nieuwsuur. BuzzFeed drew more
attention to the interview in the U.S.
Somewhat startled, news anchor Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal said, "That was
just a robbery, I believe - wasn't it?"
"No, there's no finding," Assange responded. "I'm suggesting that our sources
take risks, and they become concerned to see things occurring like that."
"Why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?"
van Rosenthal asked.
"Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States,"
Assange said, "and that our sources face serious risks. That's why they come
to us, so we can protect their anonymity."
The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington has not established
a motive for the killing but reportedly told the young man's family that he
likely died during a robbery attempt turned tragic. His father, however, told
Omaha CBS-affiliate KMTV he did not think it was a robbery because nothing was
stolen: his watch, money, credit cards and phone were still with him.
The WikiLeaks founder said that others have suggested that Rich was killed
for political reasons and that his organization is investigating the incident.
"I think it is a concerning situation. There isn't a conclusion yet.
We wouldn't be able to state a conclusion, but we are concerned about it," he
continued. "More importantly, a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when
that kind of thing happens."
WikiLeaks further fanned the flames of conspiracy by offering a $20,000 reward
for anyone with information leading to the conviction of the person responsible
for killing Rich.
After disappearing for a couple of weeks, the hacker "Guccifer 2.0"
returned late this afternoon to provide a new headache for Democrats.
In a post to his WordPress blog, the vandal–who previously provided
nearly 20,000 Democratic National Committee e-mails to Wikileaks–uploaded
an Excel file that includes the cell phone numbers and private e-mail
addresses of nearly every Democratic member of the House of Representatives.
The Excel file also includes similar contact information for hundreds
of congressional staff members (chiefs of staff, press secretaries,
legislative directors, schedulers) and campaign personnel.
In announcing the leak of the document, "Guccifer 2.0" reported that
the spreadsheet was stolen during a hack of the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee. " As you see I wasn't wasting my time! It was even
easier than in the case of the DNC breach," the hacker wrote.
"... What struck me in the article was a conflict between attributing the DNC hack and a possible
Clinton hack that the authors didn't even attempt to address. They claim analysts are very confident
that Russian hackers, working for the government, hacked the DNC. But as to the possibility that anyone
hacked Clinton's private server; well, if they did, they would have been way to savvy to leave any traces
that they'd done so. A DNC hack; those sloppy Russian government hackers did it. A personal server;
a real pro job. ..."
What struck me in the article was a conflict between attributing the DNC hack and a possible
Clinton hack that the authors didn't even attempt to address. They claim analysts are very confident
that Russian hackers, working for the government, hacked the DNC. But as to the possibility that
anyone hacked Clinton's private server; well, if they did, they would have been way to savvy to
leave any traces that they'd done so. A DNC hack; those sloppy Russian government hackers did
it. A personal server; a real pro job.
IhaveLittleToAdd | Aug 11, 2016 12:00:03 PM | 2
I actually find it possible, namely that the firewall in DNC was sloppy, and paranoid Hillary
had best computer security consultants she could find. Moreover, hers was a small operation and
easier to keep secure, unlike DNC with many employees and many interactive activities. I speculate
here, but this is plausible.
========
More importantly, was there a public opprobrium, "How did they dare!" about the putative Russian
hack? This is actually an interesting angle. Sometimes public suspects that the government is
doing illegal stuff in other countries, it is thinly denied (or "our policy is no to comment"),
and most of the citizens are glad that our leaders are so resourceful. But the side effect is
that this type of activity becomes "normal", and detecting or convincingly suspecting it exits
yawning response.
For example, there were two assassination or "near assassination" attempts on Israeli diplomatic
personal and Iran was suspected. "Sure, didn't they have a string of assassination of nuclear
assassinations in Tehran? By the way, what is the weather this weekend?" If I recall, Tehran assassinations
stopped.
Similarly, after American cyber-successes, cyber attacks became a new normal.
The media reporting on keeps making the statement from the police 'that nothing was missing from
his body or belongings'. The guy was walking around at 4 AM, and apparently no one but his killers
actually saw him. So, I guess he couldn't be carrying anything outside of his pockets? In has
hands?
"From Claudia Kash: I know why Seth Rich had to die. There were 2 sets of polling places this
primary season -- one set for most of the voters, who went on state >websites to find their polling
locations -- a second set for Hillary Clinton supporters who looked on Hillary >Clinton's website
to find their polling location. The Secretary of State for each state had one set of locations
on >the record; the other set of locations, the ones listed on Hillary's website, were not on
the state record. I know this because I looked on her website to find where a friend should vote
-- then double-checked the state >website, which showed a different address. I thought there must
be a mistake -- I kept checking, right up to >election day.
But until they killed Seth Rich, I
couldn't figure out why there would be two different polling >places. This is how I think the
scam worked: While most voters look up their location on their state website, voters who >were
signed up as Hillary Clinton supporters would be directed to her site to find their polling place.
It was set >up the same as any other DNC polling place -- with DNC volunteers, regular voting
machines, etc. -- and a >duplicate voter roster, the same as the roster at the other polling place.
Voters would be checked off on the >roster, same as at the other polling place... and after the
polls closed, the DNC supervisor would pick up the >roster and the ballots.
The supervisor would then pick up the roster at the legitimate polling place and the ballots
there. He(or she) >would then replace a number of Bernie Sanders ballots with an equal number
of the ballots from the Hillary >Clinton voting location. Then the duplicate roster from the HRC
would be shredded and thrown away, along >with all the Bernie Sanders ballots that had been replaced.
That way the number of people who voted (on the >remaining roster) still matches the number of
ballots. This is why so many states reported a "lower than expected voter turnout".
Seth Rich, who was responsible for the app that helped voters find their polling places, did
not realize that >there were two sets of polling places until he himself went to vote. He lived
in Washington DC, which voted at >the end of the primary season, a week after Clinton had already
been declared the winner. I believe he discovered it then, and had started asking questions about
why the polling places on Hillary's >website didn't match the ones on the DC website.
But even if he didn't say a word to anybody, it would have been dangerous to let him live.
He would have >figured it out sooner or later -- and he would have reported it when he did."
Seems a straight Machiavellian operation. Murder the young insider, Seth Rich, that leaked the
emails to Assange's Wikileaks and then blame it on an enemy that none can fact check on. DNC=
Deep National Control.
Those presstitutes resort to open red bating to diminish the damage cause of
DNC leaks. Complete absence of fact and computer related jargon that ordinary people
do not understand are perfect propaganda smoke screen for red baiting
Notable quotes:
"... Speaking privately, an individual close to the investigation of the Democratic Party hacks said there is a growing presumption that candidates, officials, and operators in both parties are being targeted. "Everyone is sweating this right now," the person said. "This isn't just limited to Democrats." ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 claims to be the source of the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, which published them just prior to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia last month. The emails showed that DNC staffers discussed how to undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned in the wake of the disclosures. ..."
"... WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has hinted that there are more emails coming. And earlier this week, Trump adviser Roger Stone seemed to confirm that when he said at a public appearance that he had been in touch with Assange and learned that "the next tranche of his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation…" ..."
"... Emails that were disclosed this week as part of a lawsuit into Hillary Clinton's private email server raised questions about whether her staff were doing political favors on behalf of big-dollar donors to the foundation. The Clinton campaign has consistently denied that charge, but questions of conflict of interest have dogged the candidate. ..."
"... another conspiracy theory that Assange has helped to fuel: That a murdered 27-year old DNC staffer may have been the source of emails to WikiLeaks. ..."
"... In an interview with a Dutch television journalist this week, Assange implied that Setch Rich was the source and that he may have been murdered on a Washington, D.C., street in July for divulging information. ..."
Russians Suspected of Hacking Democrats Also Went After Republicans, Researchers
Say
Cybersecurity experts have linked one of the groups that stole emails from the
DNC to a campaign against lawmakers and officials, including John McCain.
But Republicans have reason to worry, too. Computer security researchers
are linking one of the Russian groups that stole emails from the Democratic
National Committee to a campaign that hacked the staff of at least three GOP
lawmakers, as well as state-level party officials across the country.
Back in June, a little noticed website called
DCLeaks published the emails
of various political and military figures. Most public attention focused on
emails written by retired Gen. Philip Breedlove, formerly the supreme allied
commander of NATO.
But the DCLeaks cache also included
emails from hundreds of Republican politicos , including of campaign staff
for Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who ran for president this year, as
well as Republican Michele Bachmann, a former member of Congress who ran for
president in 2012. The lawmakers had served on sensitive committees including
Armed Services and Intelligence. DCLeaks also published messages from party
officials in Wyoming, Illinois, Connecticut, and Texas.
The Daily Beast contacted multiple offices of those implicated in the hack,
including McCain and Graham, but received no response.
The published emails are mostly innocuous and mundane. But the hackers also
gave no indication of whether they had more information or had compromised the
accounts of people whom they didn't publicly expose.
Speaking privately, an individual close to the investigation of the Democratic
Party hacks said there is a growing presumption that candidates, officials,
and operators in both parties are being targeted. "Everyone is sweating this
right now," the person said. "This isn't just limited to Democrats."
Some U.S. officials suspect that the DNC hack, and a subsequent penetration
of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is part of a Russian "active
measures" campaign to influence the presidential election, perhaps in favor
of Donald Trump, who has been praised by
Russian President Vladimir Putin and has had business dealings in Russia.
But the targeting of GOP officials suggests that the campaign could more
broadly be aimed at collecting potentially incriminating information about candidates
in both parties. In that sense, the campaign tends to fit more with the standard
modus operandi of a foreign intelligence organization, which is to spy on anyone
in a position of power, regardless of party.
Researchers at computer security company ThreatConnect, which has been analyzing
the Democratic hacks, called DCLeaks a "Russian-backed influence outlet."
In a blog post Friday afternoon, the researchers noted that the site had
exposed the emails of a former regional field director for the DNC "whose email
account was breached
in the same manner as a known FANCY BEAR attack method ."
Fancy Bear is one of the monikers used for a Russian hacker group that U.S.
officials say was one of two groups that infiltrated the DNC.
"DCLeaks' registration and hosting information aligns with other FANCY BEAR
activities and known tactics, techniques, and procedures," ThreatConnect's researchers
found.
What's more, the researchers have also linked a hacker that goes by the name
Guccifer 2.0, and is
suspected of working for Russia , with DCLeaks.
Guccifer 2.0 claims to be the source of the DNC emails to WikiLeaks,
which published them just prior to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia
last month. The emails showed that DNC staffers discussed how to undermine the
campaign of Bernie Sanders. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned in the
wake of the disclosures.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has hinted that there are more emails
coming. And earlier this week, Trump adviser Roger Stone seemed to confirm that
when he said at a public appearance that
he had been in touch with Assange and learned that "the next tranche of
his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation…"
Emails that were disclosed this week as part of a lawsuit into Hillary
Clinton's private email server raised questions about whether her staff were
doing political favors on behalf of big-dollar donors to the foundation.
The Clinton campaign has consistently denied that charge, but questions of conflict
of interest have dogged the candidate.
The new evidence of links between DCLeaks and the Russian hackers also undercuts
another conspiracy theory that Assange has helped to fuel: That a murdered
27-year old DNC staffer may have been the source of emails to WikiLeaks.
In an interview with a Dutch television journalist this week, Assange
implied
that Setch Rich was the source and that he may have been murdered on a Washington,
D.C., street in July for divulging information.
That seems highly unlikely. For starters, hackers who have access to the
purloined emails have been communicating with journalists since Rich was killed.
But researchers, at ThreatConnect and elsewhere, also now believe that Guccifer
2.0 was WikiLeaks' source and that the group is acting as a front for the Russian
government.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, a U.S. official told The Daily Beast
this week that there is no evidence in the investigation of the DNC and other
hacks that Rich played any
seth-rich-2
Last month Seth Rich, a data analyst who worked for the DNC, was shot near his
home in Washington DC. He was on the phone to his girlfriend when it happened.
Police were called to the scene and discovered the young man's body at roughly
4.20am. It was reported that Rich was "covered in bruises", shot "several times"
and "at least once in the back".
The New York Daily News reported:
" …police have found little information to explain his death. At this time,
there are no suspects, no motive and no witnesses in Rich's murder.
While initial theories were that the killing was robbery or mugging gone
wrong, the Washington Post said:
" There is no immediate indication that robbery was a motive in the attack…but
it has not been ruled out as a possibility."
Rich's family have also reported that nothing was taken:
" [Rich's] hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised,
and yet he had two shots to his back, and yet they never took anything."
On August 9th Julian Assange gave an interview on Dutch television in which
he seemed to imply that Rich's death was politically motivated, and perhaps
suggest he had been a source for the DNC e-mail leak:
That same day wikileaks tweeted that they were offering a $20,000 dollar
reward for information on the killing of Mr Rich.
These are the facts of the case, so far. And they are undisputed.
I'm not going to take a position on the motive for Mr Rich's killing, or
possible suspects. But I do want to point out the general level of media silence.
Take these facts and change the names – imagine Trump's email had been hacked,
and then a staffer with possible ties to wikileaks was inexplicably shot dead.
Imagine this poor young man had been a Kremlin whistleblower, or a Chinese hacker,
or an Iranian blogger.
If this, as yet unsolved, murder had ties to anyone other than Hillary Clinton,
would it be being so ritually and rigourously ignored by the MSM?
It's hard to overstate the amount of caution we should all display with this
story, but it's too newsworthy to ignore.
It starts with this interview with
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange where he brings up
murdered DNC staffer, Seth Rich, unprompted.
Here's the juicy part:
ASSANGE: Our whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material
and often very significant risks. There's a 27 year old that works for the
DNC, he was shot in the back. Murdered, uh just a few weeks ago, uh, for
unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington. So...
INTERVIEWER: That was, that was just a robbery I believe. Wasn't it?
ASSANGE: No. There's no finding. So...
INTERVIEWER: What are you suggesting? What are you suggesting?
ASSANGE: I'm suggesting our sources take risks and they uh, become concerned,
uh to see things occurring, like that.
INTERVIEWER: Was he one of your sources then? I mean...
ASSANGE: We don't comment on who our sources are.
INTERVIEWER: Then why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot
in the streets of Washington?
ASSANGE: Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the
United States. And our sources are ... you know... our sources face serious
risks. That's why they come to us, so we can protect their anonymity.
Then comes the news that Wikileaks is offering a $25,000 reward for any information
leading to the capture of Rich's murderer.
Dr. Holland also gets the endocrinology wrong (hope she's got it right in
her book) when she refers to estrogen a "stress hormone that helps a woman be
resilient during her fertile years."
Stress hormones are part of the "flight or fight" response, and the major
stress hormones include
cortisol and epinephrine. Stress hormones can be released rapidly by the
body in response to a threat of some kind (running the gamut from a broken toe
to reading an article on how hormones make or break a woman's ability to be
president). This is not estrogen. Estrogen thickens the lining of the uterus,
affects breast tissue, and of course (like most hormones) has a multitude of
effects everywhere in the body. It is not, however, a stress hormone. It may
be able to counteract oxidative stress in some tissues, but that doesn't make
it a stress hormone).
The major source of estrogen before menopause is the developing egg and how
far the egg is in the cycle is what governs the release of estrogen, not stress.
The female endocrine system is just not built to churn out large amounts of
estrogen in response to stress. Also, girls don't have estrogen before puberty
so it would be a pretty poor evolutionary design for a stress hormones to only
kick in at puberty. Bad luck if you get chased by a saber-toothed tiger at the
age of eight!
... ... ...
Postmenopausal women are not biologically primed to handle stress any more
or less than premenopausal women. Hillary Clinton's hormones have nothing to
do with her qualifications, and I find any connection between the two, whether
well-intentioned or simply a book plug, an insult.
To say a woman's hormones are in some way related to her fitness to be president
then also means at some time you think she is less fit to be president. You
can't have it both ways.
There is no wisdom in menopause. There is wisdom, and then there is menopause.
All I care about is Ms. Clinton's wisdom, and that's all you should care about
too.
Jennifer Gunter is an obstetrician-gynecologist and author of
The Preemie Primer. She blogs at her self-titled site,
Dr. Jen Gunter.
Hillary Clinton reportedly has chronic health issues that may interfere with
the presidency, according to one political insider. The 68-year-old presumptive
Democratic nominee has never been too open about her medical history, but the
coughing fits alone may be enough to indicate that Clinton has some
serious health problems. Radar Online issued a report on Wednesday
that has an insider close to Hillary Clinton saying the presidential hopeful
is facing "mounting health issues."
Several coughing fits have been caught on camera as Hillary Clinton has campaigned
across the nation for the 2016 primary elections and caucuses. The Washington
Post reported in April that Clinton had
two public coughing fits in one week, leaving Democratic constituents wondering
if she's even healthy enough to become president. Actress Susan Sarandon even
said in May during an interview with Larry King that she won't endorse Hillary
Clinton as a presidential candidate because "she may have health issues."
... ... ...
In April, an article published on
KevinMD.com outlined some concerns about Hillary Clinton's health records,
but said that Clinton's health risks aren't anything that should disqualify
her from being president. However, "they are certainly something to ponder."
Bernie Sanders delegates were forcefully locked out of a DNC meeting
on Saturday as the Democratic National Committee attempted to block superdelegate
reforms.
The meeting of 187 rules committee members took place in a small room at
the Wells Fargo Center where they unceremoniously voted to reject a proposal
that would ban superdelegates in future primaries.
The DNC's Rules Committee,
which is co-chaired by former Massachusetts Congressman and outspoken
Clinton surrogate Barney Frank, is made up of representatives of both campaigns
in proportion to how many delegates each campaign won during the primary
process.
DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz also appointed 25 members of the Rules
Committee who are able to vote on each proposal. The superdelegate elimination
proposal and related measures were easily the most high-profile votes of
the day.
On Saturday afternoon, the committee voted to reject a proposal eliminating
the role of superdelegates in future Democratic presidential primaries -
something that
multiple state Democratic conventions voted in favor of earlier this
year. Similar proposals to minimize or limit the power of superdelegates
were also defeated.
The constant presentation of these numbers (superdelegate votes almost always included in media
analyses of the race) reinforces the notion that Clinton is the more electable candidate, and pushes
many into her camp as the best choice against the Republicans; this further expands her lead and
reifies the perceived electability disparity, ad nauseam. Hence the narrative that Bernie Sanders
is the ideological candidate who inspires, and Hillary the pragmatist who can win. In reality, Bernie
is both. However, barring a major grassroots revolt, Hillary Clinton will seize the nomination. And
she will lose to Donald Trump.
This Democratic Party Politburo is approaching in power to the Politburo of
the CPSU making primaries redundant -- candidate supported by Politburo is
the candidate that will be installed as the candidate from the Party in
Presidential election independently of the level rank-and-file voters support.
This is especially true is competition is close.
Notable quotes:
"... Even if Clinton were to lose California to Bernie Sanders, she would be well ahead in the number of delegates awarded based on the outcome of primaries, though still shy of the 2,383 threshold -- a majority at the party's nominating convention in July. ..."
"... AP based its findings on a survey of the superdelegates -- the party's high-level officials, officeholders and operatives who get a vote at the convention just for being Very Important. Clinton has been piling up superdelegate support since long before the first primary. The 571st to promise to vote for Clinton at the convention put her over the top, according to AP. ..."
"... In fact, the media were merely ratifying what Hillary Clinton's supporters have been preaching for months -- more and more frantically when their candidate kept losing to Sanders, who was harangued endlessly about the need to shut up so Democrats could "unify." ..."
"... "It's time to stand behind our presumptive candidate," Michael Brown, a superdelegate from Washington, D.C., who came forward in the past week to back Clinton before the District's June 14 primary, told the AP . "We shouldn't be acting like we are undecided when the people of America have spoken." ..."
"... Except that quite a few "people of America" didn't speak. As The Intercept commented , it was a fitting end to a race where party leaders and prominent liberals relied on their control of the party and media apparatus to steer the nomination to their choice: "Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media." ..."
"... Suddenly, Clinton -- a fixture of the Democratic Party establishment since before her husband occupied the White House and the presumptive nominee in 2016 since just after Barack Obama won re-election in 2012 -- had a fight on her hands against a candidate who connected with the disgust with the status quo felt by millions. ..."
"... As secretary of state , Clinton supported the coup-makers in Honduras who overthrew democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya; the deadly 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan; and the Obama administration's escalation of drone warfare. She used her position to travel the world convincing governments to start fracking for natural gas and oil, among other priorities of Corporate America. ..."
"... The message to the Democratic Party's more liberal voting base is already clear: Sure, you may have some criticisms of Hillary Clinton, and you may have liked what Bernie Sanders had to say -- but it's time to get real and start helping ensure the victory of the "lesser evil" in order to stop the "greater evil." But everything about Clinton's political career is further evidence that voting for the "lesser evil" leads to of evils of both kinds. ..."
"... Clinton will take the support of liberals and progressives for granted, and start concocting strategies to win over moderate and conservative "swing voters." So get ready for more speeches like her foreign policy address where it's hard to see what distinguishes her from a more mainstream Republican than Trump. ..."
"... This exposes the gap between what the Democrats are offering and what the people who are expected to vote for them want. Supporting Hillary Clinton won't close that gap. We need to start organizing for an alternative -- in politics and in all the protest movements throughout society -- that can. ..."
Hillary Clinton did well in the final major day of the Democratic presidential
primaries, winning all but one state, though the outcome in California, the
biggest contest of the whole season, was still in doubt as this article was
published.
Even if Clinton were to lose California to Bernie Sanders, she would
be well ahead in the number of delegates awarded based on the outcome of primaries,
though still shy of the 2,383 threshold -- a majority at the party's nominating
convention in July.
Sanders, whose left-wing campaign surpassed all expectations and inspired
huge numbers of people, has promised to continue his campaign, possibly through
the convention. But on election night, there were signs -- including reports
of a Thursday meeting between Sanders and Barack Obama, scheduled at Sanders'
request -- that he might relent and concede.
Either way, though, the Associated Press (AP) wasn't waiting around.
On Monday night -- with hours to go before polling places opened on the day
with the second-largest number of Democratic delegates at stake -- the news
service announced that Clinton had enough pledged delegates plus "superdelegates"
supporting her to have a lock on the nomination.
AP based its findings on a survey of the superdelegates -- the party's
high-level officials, officeholders and operatives who get a vote at the convention
just for being Very Important. Clinton has been piling up superdelegate support
since long before the first primary. The 571st to promise to vote for Clinton
at the convention put her over the top, according to AP.
In California,
Long Beach resident Arie Gonzalez told the Los Angeles Times, "It's like,
why vote?...I can't believe Democrats have all these superdelegates and that
we vote consistently always with Iowa first and California has no voice by the
time it comes down to it. We're a tenth of the population. It's ridiculous."
In fact, the media were merely ratifying what Hillary Clinton's supporters
have been preaching for months -- more and more frantically when their candidate
kept losing to Sanders, who was harangued endlessly about the need to shut up
so Democrats could "unify."
"It's time to stand behind our presumptive candidate," Michael Brown,
a superdelegate from Washington, D.C., who came forward in the past week to
back Clinton before the District's June 14 primary,
told the AP. "We shouldn't be acting like we are undecided when the people
of America have spoken."
Except that quite a few "people of America" didn't speak.
As The Intercept commented, it was a fitting end to a race where party leaders
and prominent liberals relied on their control of the party and media apparatus
to steer the nomination to their choice: "Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner
Through Media."
***
The preempting of the actual vote by superdelegate math overshadowed coverage
of the wave of enthusiasm that Sanders rode going into the final big primaries.
In California, a campaign event in Oakland drew 20,000 people, and another in
LA turned out 13,500, despite being moved to a different venue at the last minute.
This has been the story since the start of the campaign. From the moment
he said he would run for the Democratic nomination, Sanders, the self-declared
socialist, drew crowds eager to hear a candidate who talked about taking on
corporate greed, challenging the corruption of the US political system and putting
working people ahead of Wall Street profits.
Suddenly, Clinton -- a fixture of the Democratic Party establishment
since before her husband occupied the White House and the presumptive nominee
in 2016 since just after Barack Obama won re-election in 2012 --
had a fight on her hands against a candidate who connected with the disgust
with the status quo felt by millions.
... ... ...
As secretary of state, Clinton supported the coup-makers in Honduras
who overthrew democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya; the deadly 2009
troop surge in Afghanistan; and the Obama administration's escalation of drone
warfare. She used her position to travel the world convincing governments to
start fracking for natural gas and oil, among other priorities of Corporate
America.
Clinton says she's ready to stand up to Trump and his agenda, but when ordinary
people do just that with actions, not just words, she's on the other side.
... ... ..
***
The message to the Democratic Party's more liberal voting base is already
clear: Sure, you may have some criticisms of Hillary Clinton, and you may have
liked what Bernie Sanders had to say -- but it's time to get real and start
helping ensure the victory of the "lesser evil" in order to stop the "greater
evil." But everything about Clinton's political career is further evidence that
voting for the "lesser evil" leads to of evils of both kinds.
... ... ...
Clinton, meanwhile, will make the Democratic presidential nominee's time-honored
"move to the center" -- though after a primary where she turned into the "No
we can't" candidate on health care, college tuition and more, she doesn't have
far to go.
Clinton will take the support of liberals and progressives for granted,
and start concocting strategies to win over moderate and conservative "swing
voters." So get ready for more speeches like her foreign policy address where
it's hard to see what distinguishes her from a more mainstream Republican than
Trump.
A recent poll by the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research illustrates
growing dissatisfaction with the political process and the two political parties.
The May study of registered voters, Republicans and Democrats, showed that 90
percent lack confidence in the US political system. Some 40 percent said it
was "seriously broken."
"The views of ordinary voters are not considered by either party, according
to most Americans," the study stated. "Fourteen percent say the Democratic Party
is responsive to the views of the rank-and-file; 8 percent report that about
the Republican Party."
But
as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting pointed out, the corporate media didn't
report on this poll. They were too busy conducting a survey of anonymous superdelegates
so they could tell primary voters that Clinton was already the winner, so they
don't need to bother.
This exposes the gap between what the Democrats are offering and what
the people who are expected to vote for them want. Supporting Hillary Clinton
won't close that gap. We need to start organizing for an alternative -- in politics
and in all the protest movements throughout society -- that can.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It
may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Elizabeth Schulte is a journalist and reviews editor for the Socialist Worker,
writing frequently on low-wage workers, the Democratic Party and women's liberation.
The AP headline read: Super delegates Help Clinton Expand Her Lead Despite NH Loss. It was and
is a complete fabrication. Another way of putting it would be fraud.
Initiated by Clinton and the DNC and unfortunately aided and abetted by two ignorant AP reporters
(and others like CNN) who didn't know ( or maybe didn't care) that they were being snookered and
simply swallowed what was thrown at them. It would help if people who actually think they are reporters
would check DNC rules regarding the use of super delegates. Especially since there has only been
one time in the history of the Democratic party that super delegates ever cast a vote and that was
32 years ago in 1984. And even then it was to affirm the candidate who won the most pledged delegates
in the primaries.
Because as of this moment, all those super delegates claimed by Clinton don't actually exist in
terms of real votes. The only delegates that count right now and in all probability ever will count
are pledged delegates won during the primaries, not super delegates.
CNN has also been doing it's share of inept reporting by perpetuating the fiction around Clinton's
bogus superdelegate count .
Super delegates do not count towards anyone's delegate total because they don't actually exist
and will never be cast unless an extraordinary set of circumstances arises at the convention circumstances
that so far has only happened once before in the history of the Democratic Party. So in all likelihood
super delegate votes will never be cast, something CNN is both too inept to know and too lazy to
find out about.
Super delegate declarations are also non-committal so any declarations made now count for nothing
and carry no force of action even if super delegates were ever asked to cast a vote which is unlikely
and has never happened. Clinton and the DNC know this.
But it's clear that the Democratic party establishment is willing to create the fiction and
false impression that Clinton has a big delegate lead. She doesn't. Ignorant, incompetent journalists
who have more in common with parrots than Woodward and Bernstein just happily repeat the fraud they
are fed.
Hillary Clinton has no actual super delegate votes. Because based on Democratic Party rules
and procedures super delegate votes don't count until the are cast at the convention, not before,
and won't ever be cast unless they are asked to break a hopelessly deadlocked convention.
They do not automatically vote as John King erroneously claimed on CNN and have never
voted since 1984. In 2008 with much talk about superdelegates switching from Clinton to Obama then
back to Clinton and with neither candidate even close to the 2/3 majority needed, even then superdelegates
didn't vote. So the real story which CNN and other news organizations miss, is why is Clinton
and the DNC claiming super delegate votes now as part of her delegate total when it's a sham, super
delegates have no vote now, probably never will and the declarations are non-committal?
It's as much of a fraud as looking at a house you might buy, keep it under consideration, decide
to keep looking but include the house in your financial statement as an asset even though you don't
own it. Or writing a check post dated four months from now, unsigned and on a bank account that's
not even open and claiming it as an asset.
It's not only fraud, it reeks of campaign dirty tricks in collusion with the Obama run DNC as
part of Clinton's backroom deal with Obama, trying to give the illusion of Clinton leading by a substantial
margin when she isn't. And it raises an interesting question: is Hillary Clinton and the DNC thinking
about trying to steal the nomination?
This nonsense about super delegates is sheer political dishonesty with the Clinton campaign
along with the help of the DNC who, as even David Gergen pointed out is in the tank for Clinton,
trying to make it look like she's way ahead when she isn't.
The story as reported by two AP reporters, Hope Yen and Stephen Ohlemacher (yes, let's name names)
had the opening line, "so much for Bernie Sanders big win in New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton has picked
up endorsements from 87 super delegates to the Democratic Conventions dwarfing Sanders gain in New
Hampshire" .
Its total fiction since Sanders pledged delegates are real and the "endorsements" count for nothing
in terms of actual votes so Clinton and the DNC establishment successfully played the two AP reporters
for stooges. As well as John King and others at CNN.
Clinton saying she picked up 87 super delegates after New Hampshire has the same affect and same
weight and real influence on the nomination as if she had picked up 87 empty beer cans. Well, no,
that's not true because the beer cans would be worth more if they had a 5c deposit.
So here are the facts and the truth about super delegates based on Democratic Party rules and
procedures that you won't get from Clinton or the DNC, and it seems from the news media, at least
not now:
Super delegates have only cast a vote once in the history of the Democratic party, 32 years
ago in 1984 when Walter Mondale beat Gary Hart by less than 500 delegates won in the primaries but
didn't have the 2/3 needed for the nomination. But even then they didn't play a role in the
nominating process for president. They cast their votes for Mondale who had 1,606 pledged delegates
won in the primaries to Hart's 1164 which only affirmed the results of the primaries and allowed
Mondale to get to the 2/3 threshold as required by DNC rules.. They have never cast a vote since.
And as of now have no certain role. Pledged delegates do . So any declarations are bogus.
Super delegates would not cast a vote unless an extraordinary set of circumstances arises at the
convention, not before, a set of circumstances which only occurred in 1984,the only time super delegates
voted since they were created. Which is what makes any non-binding declarations now bogus. And Clinton
and the DNC know that too.
Those circumstances are as they occured in 1984, that neither candidate finishes the primary season
with the two thirds majority of pledged delegates needed for the nomination that are won in the primaries
- if they did the nominating process is over without superdelegates casting a single vote - the delegate
count is so close as to make them virtually tied, AND the convention is hopelessly deadlocked with
neither candidate or party officials able to persuade delegates on the other side to switch after
the first ballot.
Super delegates could be used to break a hopeless deadlock when neither candidate is able to get
the two-thirds delegate count needed. Without those circumstances they wouldn't vote and wouldn't
dare vote in a way that would reverse the votes of pledged delegates.
When Obama finished the 2008 primary season with a paltry 65 delegate lead over Clinton and it
looked like the nomination could go either way if superdelegates voted , Nancy Pelosi said super
delegates were obligated to vote for the candidate who won the most delegates if they were to vote
at all.
So where does Clinton get off claiming over 440 super delegates when whether they will vote at
all is yet to be determined, their "endorsements" are non-committal,worthless as votes, and in all
probability super delegates will never vote at all?
Delegates won in primaries, called "pledged delegates", are actually committed to vote for
the candidate they are sent to the convention to vote for as a result of vote counts in the primaries.
Without getting too esoteric, it's actually delegates that are elected during primaries, either Clinton
or Sanders delegates who are then sent by voters to the convention to vote for the candidate they
were elected to vote for on the first ballot. They are the only delegates that actually count now.
And are real. And the delegates that traditionally, and to date have decided the nomination.
So until and unless those extraordinary set of circumstances occur which only ocurred once, in
1984, super delegates will not vote, don't count now and for all intents and purposes dont even exist.
When the first roll call vote is called there will be no super delegates voting. All of which shows
the depths of dishonesty and deception Clinton is willing to go. And with her the Obama run DNC who
look like they are trying to do what they can to rig the process and create false impressions.
If Bernie Sanders finished with 2000 pledged delegates won during the primaries and needed another
three hundred to get the two-thirds majority with Clinton say, 1,000 delegates behind, there would
be some horse trading to get the remaining 300 delegates needed from Clinton perhaps making a deal
on picking a vice presidential running mate. But its inconceivable super delegates even those declaring
for her now ( which again, don't count) would cast votes for Clinton to give her the nomination.Super
delegates casting their votes for the second place finisher never happened even in 1984. It would
bring the Democratic party to its knees if they tried to crown a queen instead of nominate a president.and
Sanders voters would never vote for Clinton no matter what histrionics DNC officials pulled over
Supreme Court nominations etc etc.
Super delegates would only vote to break an otherwise hopeless deadlock and to give a clear winner
the votes required by rules to officially get the nomination. They are a last resort and most importantly
as mentioned earlier, super delegates have only once in the history of the Democratic party ever
cast a single vote and that was 32 years ago And if a hopeless deadlock never occurs super delegates
will have no role. To count them now is pure fraud.
So why is Hillary Clinton putting out the fiction that she is ahead on delegates even though she
isn't because of super delegates? Because she is being underhanded and so is the DNC run by Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz Obama's hand picked chair of the DNC who are trying to build a phony aura of expectation
and inevitability and the illusion that she will be the nominee and then if she doesn't have the
actual votes from the primary battles try and steal the nomination by using super delegates with
Obama and Wasserman-Schultz driving the getaway car.
The New York Times acting like the long arm of the law put their arm on Clinton in a recent editorial
making it clear that super delegates can have no role in the outcome of the nomination which needs
to be decided by whoever wins the most delegates in the primaries.
But there is another reason the Clinton campaign is putting out these super delegate numbers as
if they count now when they don't. Its the kind of outrageous political tactics we've seen from Republicans
-- a tactic to suppress the Sanders vote.
There is little doubt that the Clinton campaign with the help of the DNC, by putting out these
fictitious super delegate numbers are trying to create some false idea that Clinton has such a huge
lead her nomination is inevitable. The hope is this will dampen the spirit and enthusiasm of Sanders
voters (enthusiasm Clinton cant match) and hopefully hold down their turnout in the hopes of making
them think Clinton's nomination is inevitable because of super delegates and there is nothing they
can do to affect the outcome. Which of course is not true . Its more of a Republican style dirty
trick, the kind they have tried in the past in the hopes of holding down the African American vote
in certain communities. The principle is the same.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC needs to be called out for this kind of dishonest manipulation
when she is actually tied with Sanders 51-51 in pledged delegates, the only delegates that matter.
This idea that super delegates have declared anything for her carries no authority, no weight,
no certainty. Nothing a super delegate says now is binding. They could change their minds a hundred
times between now and the convention, and no one would know so how can they be counted now?
And if Clinton is putting out these phony super delegate numbers to try and grease the skids for
an attempt at stealing the nomination at the convention, it might be a good idea for Sanders voters
to remind her and everyone else of one other thing: In 2008 when it looked like Obama might lose
the nomination to Clinton because of a super delegate vote, Donna Brazille, an Obama supporter and
former chair of the DNC said publicly that if super delegates decided the nomination she would quit
the Democratic party.
If Donna Brazile can quit the Democratic party if super delegates decided the nomination so can
Sanders voters. And they can make it clear that they will. Which means if Clinton and the DNC tries
to steal the nomination from Sanders using super delegates if he has the majority of pledged delegates
they can count on Sanders voters staying home.
Clinton putting out the word that she has 469 delegates which include over 400 super delegates
that she can't ethically or even by DNC rules count is almost a veiled threat as if to say, "okay
I got buried by the voters in New Hampshire and it was razor thin in Iowa and Nevada but so what?
I have a trick up my sleeve."
If Clinton, Obama and the DNC think they are greasing the skids now so Clinton can pull a fast
one at the convention later, they better not try. If they do anything to try and rig the nomination,
Sanders voters can just vow never to support it, just like Donna Brazile threatened which will bring
the Democratic party down like a house of cards and do Clinton no good in the general election.
Let Sanders and his supporters put Clinton and the DNC on notice that if they do anything to rig
the nomination, if the nomination does not go to the candidate who won the most votes and most delegates
in the primaries as Nancy Pelosi in 2008 said it must, then the Democrats will have to face the music
and take another drubbing like they did in 2010 and 2014 essentially over Obama's unscrupulous sell
out of the health care public option to the insurance companies.
Make it clear that if Clinton can't win honestly she is not going to win at all.
And if Sanders voters stay home in the face of a corrupt process it will wipe out Democratic down
ticket candidates also, and if that's what it takes to throw open the windows, let in the fresh air
and purge the Democratic party of those corrupting the system, so be it. No amount of whining or
scare tactics by Democratic big wigs about what will happen if Clinton loses and begging Sanders
supporters to go along with the corruption will ever work.
Its called making your own bed and lying in it. With the double meaning of the word "lying" very
clear.
ADDENDUM:
This article has been updated to include the 1984 Democratic convention which is the only time
super delegates have ever voted and then voted for Walter Mondale who won the most pledged delegates
during the primaries, 1606-1164 confirming that pledged delegates won during primaries is the standard
for nominating a presidential candidate. And does not change the fact that super delegate votes do
not count unless cast at the convention and non-binding declarations that Clinton included in her
totals are completely bogus.
Wendy Wasserman-Schultz has also been corrected to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
NOTE: CNN is still showing super delegate totals for Clinton included with her pledged delegate
totals that don't actually exist and may never exist and for now and until the convention and they
are cast, if ever, are pure fiction. John King is one of the worst offenders but so is Wolf Blitzer.
The Sanders campaign needs to hold them and other media outlets accountable.
King: Superdelegates a corrupt tool designed to elect party establishment candidates like Hillary
Clinton
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
In no uncertain terms, this election — particularly the Democratic primary — is completely
rigged.
This weekend, while watching election coverage on Super Saturday — and again before and after
the Democratic debate Sunday — I lost count of the number of times pundits and experts said Hillary
Clinton has a nearly insurmountable lead against Bernie Sanders.
Except, she doesn’t — or at least she shouldn’t. Sanders has won three of the last four contests.
Overall, Clinton has won a total 12 states and Sanders has won eight. That means we have 30 states
to go.
In the 19 states that have voted so far, Clinton won 671 delegates. In those same 19 states,
Sanders won a total of 498 delegates.
Literally, Clinton has received 95.3% of the superdelegates and these individual voters have
nothing to do with the actual will of the people in their states.
A super delegate, for example, the governor of a state, he or she was elected in a general
election. How does his/her vote total compared with the votes cast in a primary? Could an argument
be made that he/she is representing more party members?
Vatch,
The voters in such a state need to tell their super delegate governor or senator that they
expect the super delegate to support the choice of the people in the primary. Few super delegates
will want to do this, so it is very important that a large number of voters contact them. We need
to hold their feet to the fire! I’ve already contacted my super delegates, and I hope others will
do the same.
sd,
Seems like a case where the unpledged superdelegates represent the 1% and the pledged delegates
represent the 99%
JohnMinMN,
In my first attempt ever at writing a letter to the editor, I tried to address this topic.
To my surprise, the StartTribune published it the day before the MN caucuses. It’s the third one
down:
Not being much of a writer, I could not have completed this task without a big assist from
the material provided by Yves, Lamb, and commentariot. Thanks a bunch!
MSNBC has me totally avoiding them. They keep showing the super delegate lead combined
with her actual delegates, misleading viewers to think her lead is insurmountable when it isn’t.
And then there’s a reporter, “Joy” I believe, who said did you hear Bernie saying that his
first encounter with the difference between the races was in the 90’s! Totally ignoring his background
and intentionally misleading viewers. Disgusting.
Super-delegates have to vote with the will of the people, if they don’t democracy is dead.
That’s always been my understanding of it..
Go Bernie !
zygmuntFRAUDbernier,
I can’t stand the TV main-stream media’s attempts at brainwashing. There are very few sites
on US affairs with the quality of coverage and critique I find here at NC, at least for me.
Re: Superdelegates. You’ll love Howard Dean’s tweet.
rich,
Howard Dean’s tweet…Super delegates don’t “represent people”….is this a citizen united
tie in?..hmmm…..we’re so screwed….can you see him jumping up and down when he tweeted it?
I’ve never had a gag reflex problem until i started watching howard on morning joe….note: he’s
not that super.
TomD,
There’s no point in worrying about superdelegates unless/until Sanders actually wins pledged
delegates.
It’s hard to imagine they would actually break with the vote in that case.
NotTimothyGeithner,
I disagree because they have given Hillary an aura of inevitability which would serve to
depress challenger. Super delegates should be trashed for participating in such a vile system
befitting the GOP.
TomD,
I suppose the MSM reporting Superdelegates as if they’re set is pretty bad (note in 2008 the
nytimes only reported pledged delegates).
Synoia,
Readers, whenever I put on my yellow waders and post on Clinton it takes longer than
I expect
Yes we feel for you. Wading through a fetid, sewage laden swamp is laborious and unpleasant.
You are forgiven :-)
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Not a criticism, just an observation.
