Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
May 24, 2016
Feel the BERN California!
vimeo.com/167892240
By: Forth Position Design Music: “Kill City” by Hybrid
May 24, 2016
True Progressives Are ABANDONING Hillary Clinton In Droves; She WON'T Win Them Back
Hillary Clinton gave an unusually direct interview on her campaign for the Democratic nomination and upcoming battle against GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump. While Clinton said that she will be the Democratic Party’s nominee and not Bernie Sanders, she also expects Sanders’ help in the general election.
May 24, 2016
PRESS RELEASE
Clinton Reneges on Debate, Sanders Brands Back Out ‘Insulting’ to Californians
MAY 23RD, 2016
SANTA MONICA, Calif. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday called Hillary Clinton’s decision to renege on a commitment to debate him in California “insulting” to the one in eight Americans who live in the nation’s largest state.
Sanders spoke about Clinton backing out of the debate during an address to 6,750 supporters who filled a football field at Santa Monica High School.
“A number of months ago our campaign and her campaign reached an agreement on a number of debates, including one here in California,” Sanders told the crowd. He was referring to commitments each campaign agreed to last winter to add debates to a schedule set by the Democratic National Committee.
Sanders said it was “insulting to the people of California – our largest state – that she is not prepared to have a discussion with me about how we address the major crises we face.”
Sanders’ remarks capped a day when he continued to campaign from rally to rally across Southern California ahead of the June 7 primary contest with 475 pledged delegates at stake.
Sanders expressed confidence about his prospects in California over Clinton. “They’ve been very nervous lately and I don’t want to get them more nervous but we’re going to win here in California,” he said.
In addition to California, there are contests on the same day in Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota and South Dakota. In those states, Sanders hopes to extend a recent winning streak that so far has put 20 states in his win column.
Sanders said his campaign has been propelled by excitement and energy that could carry Democrats to victory in November. He cited a surge this year in new voters in California, where Monday’s deadline for registration was expected to see some 2 million voters sign up according to projections by Political Data Inc. “Voter registration here in California among young people and working people is off the charts,” Sanders said.
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/clinton-reneges-california-debate-sanders-brands-back-insulting-californians/
Hillary Clinton RENEGES on Debate, Bernie Sanders Brands Back Out ‘INSULTING’ to Californians
PRESS RELEASE
Clinton Reneges on Debate, Sanders Brands Back Out ‘Insulting’ to Californians
MAY 23RD, 2016
SANTA MONICA, Calif. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday called Hillary Clinton’s decision to renege on a commitment to debate him in California “insulting” to the one in eight Americans who live in the nation’s largest state.
Sanders spoke about Clinton backing out of the debate during an address to 6,750 supporters who filled a football field at Santa Monica High School.
“A number of months ago our campaign and her campaign reached an agreement on a number of debates, including one here in California,” Sanders told the crowd. He was referring to commitments each campaign agreed to last winter to add debates to a schedule set by the Democratic National Committee.
Sanders said it was “insulting to the people of California – our largest state – that she is not prepared to have a discussion with me about how we address the major crises we face.”
Sanders’ remarks capped a day when he continued to campaign from rally to rally across Southern California ahead of the June 7 primary contest with 475 pledged delegates at stake.
Sanders expressed confidence about his prospects in California over Clinton. “They’ve been very nervous lately and I don’t want to get them more nervous but we’re going to win here in California,” he said.
In addition to California, there are contests on the same day in Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota and South Dakota. In those states, Sanders hopes to extend a recent winning streak that so far has put 20 states in his win column.
Sanders said his campaign has been propelled by excitement and energy that could carry Democrats to victory in November. He cited a surge this year in new voters in California, where Monday’s deadline for registration was expected to see some 2 million voters sign up according to projections by Political Data Inc. “Voter registration here in California among young people and working people is off the charts,” Sanders said.
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/clinton-reneges-california-debate-sanders-brands-back-insulting-californians/
May 24, 2016
Lee Fang ?@lhfang
New emails show Hillary Clinton's energy initiative used Poland as a "laboratory" for exporting US-style fracking
Hillary Clinton’s Energy Initiative Pressed Countries to Embrace Fracking, New Emails Reveal
New disclosed emails show Clinton State Department Officials working alongside fossil-fuel companies aggressively pushing for fracking even where local governments had expressed opposition and in some cases even banned fracking.
The Intercept....
Emails show Hillary's Energy Initiative Used Poland as "LABORATORY" For Exporting US-Style Fracking
Lee Fang ?@lhfang
New emails show Hillary Clinton's energy initiative used Poland as a "laboratory" for exporting US-style fracking
Hillary Clinton’s Energy Initiative Pressed Countries to Embrace Fracking, New Emails Reveal
New disclosed emails show Clinton State Department Officials working alongside fossil-fuel companies aggressively pushing for fracking even where local governments had expressed opposition and in some cases even banned fracking.
The Intercept....
May 24, 2016
We’re going to hear from more of those voters on June 7 when voters finally go to polls in delegate-rich California, where 39 percent of the population is Hispanic. Last week, Sanders got 11,000 people to turn out for a rally in Southern California. Even if Clinton stays on track to win California and secure the nomination, as is very likely, Latinos for Bernie aren’t going simply go quietly into the Hillary camp. Many will just sit out this election. Mark my words. Latinos are always saying that they don’t desire anything special, that they just want what other Americans want. Believe it. In this election, many Latino voters want what about 50 percent of voters overall want: a third choice.
cont'
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/23/yes-latinos-loathe-donald-trump-but-they-re-not-sold-yet-on-hillary-clinton.html
YES, Latinos Loathe Donald Trump—But They’re NOT SOLD YET on Hillary Clinton
First, the good news for the Clintonistas: The competition with presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for Latino voters is no competition at all. According to a new poll by Fox News Latino, Hillary Clinton makes mincemeat out of Trump with that important demographic. Seventy-four percent of Latinos have a negative view of Trump. Anyone could have predicted that given how the Manhattan real estate mogul has gone out of his way to antagonize Latinos over the last 11 months. The bad news is that, all things being equal, Latinos aren’t thrilled with “La Hillary” either. Many don’t trust her, don’t like her or both. The same poll that shows her with a 39% lead among Latinos shows that 41% have a negative view of her. Before we unpack all that, let’s talk the three reasons why Latino voters are so important in the first place.
First, demographics. Latinos represent 17 percent of the population, yield 50,000 potential new voters every month as young Latinos turn 18, and could account for as many as 13 million voters in November. Second, independence. Latinos—while solidly registered as Democrats, by a more than two-to-one margin—have demonstrated their unpredictability by voting for moderate Republicans who ask for their support. Third, location. Latinos are strategically placed around the country and represent a large presence in three of the five battleground states that often decide presidential elections: Nevada, Colorado and Florida.
-snip-
At this point, most Latinos absolutely loathe the billionaire businessman, who will be lucky to win 20 percent of the Latino votes in November—which would be an all-time low for Republican presidential candidates. And yet, even with all that going for her, Clinton still can’t seem to close the deal. After talking to fellow Latinos over the last several months, I’ve come up with ten reasons for the lackluster response:
— Clinton fatigue. Hillary Clinton has been in their living rooms for 25 years, and many are ready for a change.
— Trust. Like the majority of other Americans, much of the Latino community doesn’t trust Hillary or believe what she says.
— Her husband. President Clinton militarized the U.S.-Mexico border near San Diego with Operation Gatekeeper in 1994 and signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which divided families by making it easier to remove the undocumented and harder for them to return.
— Her Senate record. Clinton took up an immigration hardline that included voting for a Trump-style border wall and boasting to a conservative radio talk show host in New York that she was “adamantly against illegal immigrants.”
— Condescension. Clinton, who usually doesn’t speak to Latinos in non-election years, was clumsy during her 2008 presidential bid when she tried to connect to Latinos at a Las Vegas restaurant by referring to their problems as “chips” and “guacamole.”
— The Obama presidency. Hillary was at President Obama’s side for four years, as Secretary of State. Many Latinos resent Obama for deporting 3 million people and dividing hundreds of thousands of families. If she really was uncomfortable with what was happening, she should have spoken up earlier.
— Honduras. As Secretary of State, Clinton backed Honduran military forces after it ousted democratically elected president Manuel Zeyala in 2009 and pushed back against global pressure to reinstate him. The coup helped throw the country into chaos.
— Central American refugees. In summer of 2014, as about 80,000 women and children from Central America streamed across the Texas-Mexico border, Clinton told CNN that the refugees, even unaccompanied children, “should be sent back” to send a message. No hearing, no lawyer, no determination of refugee status. Just send them back.
— Caution. Latinos were burned by Obama who they supported by wide margins in 2008 and 2012. Many seem prepared to support Hillary in 2016, especially over Trump, but they want to be more careful this time and get more ironclad guarantees upfront.
— Finally, there’s Bernie. Many Latinos are still excited about Bernie Sanders, and they’re swept up in the whole anti-establishment mood that other Americans have been caught up in as well since they’re marinating in the same juices.
— Trust. Like the majority of other Americans, much of the Latino community doesn’t trust Hillary or believe what she says.
— Her husband. President Clinton militarized the U.S.-Mexico border near San Diego with Operation Gatekeeper in 1994 and signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which divided families by making it easier to remove the undocumented and harder for them to return.
— Her Senate record. Clinton took up an immigration hardline that included voting for a Trump-style border wall and boasting to a conservative radio talk show host in New York that she was “adamantly against illegal immigrants.”
— Condescension. Clinton, who usually doesn’t speak to Latinos in non-election years, was clumsy during her 2008 presidential bid when she tried to connect to Latinos at a Las Vegas restaurant by referring to their problems as “chips” and “guacamole.”
— The Obama presidency. Hillary was at President Obama’s side for four years, as Secretary of State. Many Latinos resent Obama for deporting 3 million people and dividing hundreds of thousands of families. If she really was uncomfortable with what was happening, she should have spoken up earlier.
— Honduras. As Secretary of State, Clinton backed Honduran military forces after it ousted democratically elected president Manuel Zeyala in 2009 and pushed back against global pressure to reinstate him. The coup helped throw the country into chaos.
— Central American refugees. In summer of 2014, as about 80,000 women and children from Central America streamed across the Texas-Mexico border, Clinton told CNN that the refugees, even unaccompanied children, “should be sent back” to send a message. No hearing, no lawyer, no determination of refugee status. Just send them back.
— Caution. Latinos were burned by Obama who they supported by wide margins in 2008 and 2012. Many seem prepared to support Hillary in 2016, especially over Trump, but they want to be more careful this time and get more ironclad guarantees upfront.
— Finally, there’s Bernie. Many Latinos are still excited about Bernie Sanders, and they’re swept up in the whole anti-establishment mood that other Americans have been caught up in as well since they’re marinating in the same juices.
We’re going to hear from more of those voters on June 7 when voters finally go to polls in delegate-rich California, where 39 percent of the population is Hispanic. Last week, Sanders got 11,000 people to turn out for a rally in Southern California. Even if Clinton stays on track to win California and secure the nomination, as is very likely, Latinos for Bernie aren’t going simply go quietly into the Hillary camp. Many will just sit out this election. Mark my words. Latinos are always saying that they don’t desire anything special, that they just want what other Americans want. Believe it. In this election, many Latino voters want what about 50 percent of voters overall want: a third choice.
cont'
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/23/yes-latinos-loathe-donald-trump-but-they-re-not-sold-yet-on-hillary-clinton.html
May 24, 2016
PRESS RELEASE
Sanders Statement on DNC Platform
MAY 23RD, 2016
LOS ANGELES – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders issued the following statement on Monday on the makeup of a key committee that will draft the party platform for this summer’s Democratic National Convention:
“We believe that we will have the representation on the platform drafting committee to create a Democratic platform that reflects the views of millions of our supporters who want the party to address the needs of working families in this country and not just Wall Street, the drug companies, the fossil fuel industry and other powerful special interests.”
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-statement-dnc-platform/
Bernie Sanders Statement on DNC PLATFORM
PRESS RELEASE
Sanders Statement on DNC Platform
MAY 23RD, 2016
LOS ANGELES – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders issued the following statement on Monday on the makeup of a key committee that will draft the party platform for this summer’s Democratic National Convention:
“We believe that we will have the representation on the platform drafting committee to create a Democratic platform that reflects the views of millions of our supporters who want the party to address the needs of working families in this country and not just Wall Street, the drug companies, the fossil fuel industry and other powerful special interests.”
https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-statement-dnc-platform/
May 23, 2016
.
Hillary Clinton Supporter Terry McAuliffe Is Under FBI INVESTIGATION For Campaign Donations
Hillary Clinton Supporter Terry McAuliffe Is Under FBI Investigation For Campaign Donations
.
May 23, 2016
-snip-
Background
Last August, Secretary Clinton handed over her private email server to the FBI, five months after she acknowledged she had used it for work-related emails as Secretary of State. She admitted to having deleted about 31,000 emails she described as personal. Media reports last fall, however, indicated that the FBI was able to recover the personal emails, and was reviewing them, as well as the 30,000 others she had described as work-related. In January, the Department of State announced that, of the 30,000 work-related emails, at least 1,340 contained classified material. The Department retroactively classified 22 of those TOP SECRET and prevented their release. Among the 22 were some that, according to media reports, included information on highly sensitive Special Access Programs (SAP). The White House has said it will do nothing to impede the FBI investigation and possible filing of charges against Clinton, if the facts should warrant that kind of action. Inasmuch as the outcome of the investigation is bound to have major political consequences, such White House assurances stretch credulity. By all indications, the FBI is slow-walking the investigation and mainstream media are soft-pedaling the issue. As things now stand, most Americans remain unaware of the import of this industrial-scale compromise of very sensitive national security information in Secretary Clinton’s emails.
-snip-
Another argument being surfaced, in a transparent attempt to defend Secretary Clinton, has to do with intent. It is said that she did not intend to have classified information on her computer in New York and had no intention of handling secret material in a way that would be accessible to foreign intelligence or others lacking the proper security clearances and the need-to-know. But while intent might be relevant in terms of punishment, it does not change the fact that as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, then Senator Clinton had clearances for classified information for years before becoming Secretary of State. She knew the rules and yet as Secretary she handled classified information carelessly after a deliberate decision to circumvent normal procedures for its safeguarding, thus making it vulnerable to foreign intelligence, as well as to criminal hackers. Anyone who has ever handled classified material knows that there are a number of things that you do not do. You do not take it home with you, you do not copy it and share it with anyone who does not have a clearance and a need-to-know, you do not strip off the classification marks and treat it as unclassified, and you do not transfer it to another email account that is not protected by a government server. If you have a secured government computer operating off of a secure server that means that what is on the computer stays on the computer. This is not a matter of debate or subject to interpretation. It is how one safeguards classified information, even if one believes that the material should not be classified, which is another argument that has been made in Clinton’s defense. Whether or not the classification is unnecessary is not your decision to make.
-snip-
Some More Equal Than Others
Secretary Clinton’ case invites comparison with what happened to former CIA case officer Jeffrey Sterling, now serving a three-and-a-half-year prison term for allegedly leaking information to New York Times journalist James Risen. Sterling first came to the media’s attention when in 2003 he blew the whistle on a botched CIA operation called Operation Merlin, telling the Senate Intelligence Committee staff that the operation had ended up revealing nuclear secrets to Iran. When in 2006 James Risen published a book that discussed, inter alia, this amateurish cowboy operation, the Department of Justice focused on Sterling as the suspected source. In court, the federal prosecutors relied almost entirely on Risen’s phone and email logs, which reportedly demonstrated that the two men had been in contact up until 2005. But the prosecutors did not provide the content of those communications even though the FBI was listening in on some of them. Risen has claimed that he had multiple sources on Operation Merlin, and Sterling has always denied being involved. Jeffrey Sterling was not permitted to testify in the trial on his own behalf because he would have had to discuss Operation Merlin, which was and is still classified. He could not mention any details about it even if they were already publicly known through the Risen book. No evidence was ever produced in court demonstrating that any classified information ever passed between the two men, but Sterling, an African American, was nevertheless convicted by an all-white jury in Virginia based on “suspicion” and the presumption that “it had to be him.” The contrast between the copious evidence – some of it self-admitted – of Secretary Clinton’s demonstrable infractions, on the one hand, and the very sketchy, circumstantial evidence used to convict and imprison Jeffrey Sterling, on the other, lend weight to the suspicion that there is one law for the rich and powerful in the United States and another for the rest of us.
cont'
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/05/23/intel-vets-urge-fast-report-on-clintons-emails/
INTEL VETS Urge Fast Report on Hillary Clinton’s Emails
A group of U.S. intelligence veterans is calling on President Obama to expedite the FBI review of former Secretary of State Clinton’s alleged email security violations so the public can assess this issue in a timely fashion.
"..Anyone who has ever handled classified material knows that there are a number of things that you do not do. You do not take it home with you, you do not copy it and share it with anyone who does not have a clearance and a need-to-know, you do not strip off the classification marks and treat it as unclassified, and you do not transfer it to another email account that is not protected by a government server..."
"..Anyone who has ever handled classified material knows that there are a number of things that you do not do. You do not take it home with you, you do not copy it and share it with anyone who does not have a clearance and a need-to-know, you do not strip off the classification marks and treat it as unclassified, and you do not transfer it to another email account that is not protected by a government server..."
-snip-
Background
Last August, Secretary Clinton handed over her private email server to the FBI, five months after she acknowledged she had used it for work-related emails as Secretary of State. She admitted to having deleted about 31,000 emails she described as personal. Media reports last fall, however, indicated that the FBI was able to recover the personal emails, and was reviewing them, as well as the 30,000 others she had described as work-related. In January, the Department of State announced that, of the 30,000 work-related emails, at least 1,340 contained classified material. The Department retroactively classified 22 of those TOP SECRET and prevented their release. Among the 22 were some that, according to media reports, included information on highly sensitive Special Access Programs (SAP). The White House has said it will do nothing to impede the FBI investigation and possible filing of charges against Clinton, if the facts should warrant that kind of action. Inasmuch as the outcome of the investigation is bound to have major political consequences, such White House assurances stretch credulity. By all indications, the FBI is slow-walking the investigation and mainstream media are soft-pedaling the issue. As things now stand, most Americans remain unaware of the import of this industrial-scale compromise of very sensitive national security information in Secretary Clinton’s emails.
-snip-
Another argument being surfaced, in a transparent attempt to defend Secretary Clinton, has to do with intent. It is said that she did not intend to have classified information on her computer in New York and had no intention of handling secret material in a way that would be accessible to foreign intelligence or others lacking the proper security clearances and the need-to-know. But while intent might be relevant in terms of punishment, it does not change the fact that as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, then Senator Clinton had clearances for classified information for years before becoming Secretary of State. She knew the rules and yet as Secretary she handled classified information carelessly after a deliberate decision to circumvent normal procedures for its safeguarding, thus making it vulnerable to foreign intelligence, as well as to criminal hackers. Anyone who has ever handled classified material knows that there are a number of things that you do not do. You do not take it home with you, you do not copy it and share it with anyone who does not have a clearance and a need-to-know, you do not strip off the classification marks and treat it as unclassified, and you do not transfer it to another email account that is not protected by a government server. If you have a secured government computer operating off of a secure server that means that what is on the computer stays on the computer. This is not a matter of debate or subject to interpretation. It is how one safeguards classified information, even if one believes that the material should not be classified, which is another argument that has been made in Clinton’s defense. Whether or not the classification is unnecessary is not your decision to make.
-snip-
Some More Equal Than Others
Secretary Clinton’ case invites comparison with what happened to former CIA case officer Jeffrey Sterling, now serving a three-and-a-half-year prison term for allegedly leaking information to New York Times journalist James Risen. Sterling first came to the media’s attention when in 2003 he blew the whistle on a botched CIA operation called Operation Merlin, telling the Senate Intelligence Committee staff that the operation had ended up revealing nuclear secrets to Iran. When in 2006 James Risen published a book that discussed, inter alia, this amateurish cowboy operation, the Department of Justice focused on Sterling as the suspected source. In court, the federal prosecutors relied almost entirely on Risen’s phone and email logs, which reportedly demonstrated that the two men had been in contact up until 2005. But the prosecutors did not provide the content of those communications even though the FBI was listening in on some of them. Risen has claimed that he had multiple sources on Operation Merlin, and Sterling has always denied being involved. Jeffrey Sterling was not permitted to testify in the trial on his own behalf because he would have had to discuss Operation Merlin, which was and is still classified. He could not mention any details about it even if they were already publicly known through the Risen book. No evidence was ever produced in court demonstrating that any classified information ever passed between the two men, but Sterling, an African American, was nevertheless convicted by an all-white jury in Virginia based on “suspicion” and the presumption that “it had to be him.” The contrast between the copious evidence – some of it self-admitted – of Secretary Clinton’s demonstrable infractions, on the one hand, and the very sketchy, circumstantial evidence used to convict and imprison Jeffrey Sterling, on the other, lend weight to the suspicion that there is one law for the rich and powerful in the United States and another for the rest of us.
We strongly urge you to order Attorney General Loretta Lynch to instruct FBI Director James Comey to wind up a preliminary investigation and tell the country now what they have learned. By now they – and U.S. intelligence agencies – have had enough time to do an early assessment of what classified data, programs and people have been compromised. Realistically speaking, a lengthier, comprehensive post-mortem-type evaluation – however interesting it might be, might never see the light of day under a new president.
We believe the American people are entitled to prompt and full disclosure, and respectfully suggest that you ensure that enforcement of laws protecting our national security does not play stepchild to political considerations on this key issue. On April 10, you assured Chris Wallace, “I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI – not just in this (Clinton email) case, but in any case. Full stop. Period.”
We urge you to abide by that promise, and let the chips fall where they may. Full stop. Period.
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
William Binney, Technical Director, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Sen. Mike Gravel, D, Alaska; earlier, Army Intelligence
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry C. Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF Intelligence Agency (ret.), ex-Master SERE Instructor
John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)
Todd Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Scott Ritter, former MAJ, USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
Diane Roark, DOE, DOD, NSC, & professional staff, House Intelligence Committee (ret.)
Robert David Steele, former CIA Operations Officer
Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA, (ret.)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat
We believe the American people are entitled to prompt and full disclosure, and respectfully suggest that you ensure that enforcement of laws protecting our national security does not play stepchild to political considerations on this key issue. On April 10, you assured Chris Wallace, “I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI – not just in this (Clinton email) case, but in any case. Full stop. Period.”
We urge you to abide by that promise, and let the chips fall where they may. Full stop. Period.
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
William Binney, Technical Director, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Sen. Mike Gravel, D, Alaska; earlier, Army Intelligence
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry C. Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF Intelligence Agency (ret.), ex-Master SERE Instructor
John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)
Todd Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Scott Ritter, former MAJ, USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
Diane Roark, DOE, DOD, NSC, & professional staff, House Intelligence Committee (ret.)
Robert David Steele, former CIA Operations Officer
Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA, (ret.)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat
cont'
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/05/23/intel-vets-urge-fast-report-on-clintons-emails/
May 23, 2016
After weeks of polls showing Donald Trump gaining on Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton's once sizable lead, for the first time on Monday, Real Clear Politics recorded the New York billionaire ahead in the national polling average. For the period between May 13-19, the presumptive Republican nominee polled ahead of Clinton by a national average of 0.2 points.
The new figure places the upcoming presidential contest in stark new light. That national average was posted on the heels of two separate national polls which showed the two running neck-and-neck: A Washington Post/ ABC News survey released Sunday has the two in a "statistical dead heat" with Trump ahead of Clinton 46 percent to 44 percent among registered voters; while a survey from NBC News/ Wall Street Journal, also Sunday, recorded Clinton polling ahead of Trump 46 to 43 percent.
Perhaps even more troubling, the NBC/WSJ survey found that the negative ratings for the two presumptive nominees are the highest in the history of the poll. Fifty-four percent of those surveyed hold a negative opinion of Clinton and 58 percent have a negative opinion of Trump. At the same time, Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders continues to best both Clinton and Trump in favorability ratings (43 percent hold a positive view of the Vermont senator versus 36 percent who have a negative view) and maintains a double-digit lead over the Republican candidate.
NBC/WSJ recorded Sanders ahead of Trump by 15 points.
cont'
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/23/should-dems-be-freaking-out-first-national-polling-average-shows-trump-over-clinton
Should Dems Be Freaking Out? In First, National Polling Average SHOWS Trump OVER Clinton
After weeks of polls showing Donald Trump gaining on Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton's once sizable lead, for the first time on Monday, Real Clear Politics recorded the New York billionaire ahead in the national polling average. For the period between May 13-19, the presumptive Republican nominee polled ahead of Clinton by a national average of 0.2 points.
The new figure places the upcoming presidential contest in stark new light. That national average was posted on the heels of two separate national polls which showed the two running neck-and-neck: A Washington Post/ ABC News survey released Sunday has the two in a "statistical dead heat" with Trump ahead of Clinton 46 percent to 44 percent among registered voters; while a survey from NBC News/ Wall Street Journal, also Sunday, recorded Clinton polling ahead of Trump 46 to 43 percent.
Perhaps even more troubling, the NBC/WSJ survey found that the negative ratings for the two presumptive nominees are the highest in the history of the poll. Fifty-four percent of those surveyed hold a negative opinion of Clinton and 58 percent have a negative opinion of Trump. At the same time, Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders continues to best both Clinton and Trump in favorability ratings (43 percent hold a positive view of the Vermont senator versus 36 percent who have a negative view) and maintains a double-digit lead over the Republican candidate.
NBC/WSJ recorded Sanders ahead of Trump by 15 points.
cont'
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/23/should-dems-be-freaking-out-first-national-polling-average-shows-trump-over-clinton
May 22, 2016
-snip-
Well, it isn't so clear that Trump is going down as some anti-Trumpists predict. In fact, polling shows him generally in a decent position to win in November if the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate a candidate disliked and distrusted by so much of the electorate. Trump is gaining on Hillary. The Washington Post/ABC News poll released this morning reports that "Never in the history of the Post-ABC poll have the two major party nominees been viewed as harshly as Clinton and Trump. Nearly 6 in 10 registered voters say they have negative impressions of both major candidates. Overall, Clinton’s net negative rating among registered voters is minus-16, while Trump’s is minus-17, though Trump’s numbers have improved since March." Overall, Trump is beating her 46-44%. This morning Bernie told George Stephanopoulos that "We need a campaign, an election, coming up which does not have two candidates who are really very, very strongly disliked. I don't want to see the American people voting for the lesser of two evil. I want the American people to be voting for a vision of economic justice, of social justice, of environmental justice, of racial justice." Hillary-campers claim that once the primary is over and the Bernie backers coalesce around the nominee, everything will be fine. I wonder what they're smoking? Bernie's movement isn't a beauty contest about who has a better personality. The issues he raised during the campaign preclude large segments of his coalition from voting for Hillary or Trump. I'm sure many will get hoodwinked into voting for Hillary as "the lesser of two evils," but I suspect many will stay home and many will vote for Jill Stein.
Those same Hillary-campers who insist-- don't worry-- everything is going to be fine when Bernie gets out of the primary, don't seem to comprehend the degree of disdain his supporters have for everything Hillary stands for. Sorry, it's not Obama vs Clinton 2008 again. This one's about values. Saturday, Bernie's campaign released a polling memo from Tulchin Research, one I'm sure Bernie hopes the super-delegates will consider seriously before they nominate a candidate who is so weak that she can be beaten by Trump. Democrats seeking a presidential nominee to lead their party to victory in November should take notice of the overwhelming preponderance of data demonstrating that Bernie Sanders is the strongest Democratic candidate to defeat Donald Trump. For months, public polling has found Sanders running consistently better than Hillary Clinton against Trump both nationally and in key swing states across the country and that trend remains very much in tact today.
-snip-
Additionally, Sanders runs markedly better than Clinton against Trump in many key battleground states. In fact, Sanders leads Trump by wider margins than Clinton in all of the public polling that has been conducted in swing states over the past few months.
Krugman's cute Sanders dead-enders phraseology couldn't have been more effective to guarantee there would be inadequate post-convention unity than if Trump invented the term himself. But as everyone knows now, poor ole Paul has deluded himself into believing that Obama has ended inequality and Wall Street excess with (ever so slightly) higher tax rates, (an inadequate, compromised) Dodd-Frank Act and the (fraction of a loaf) Affordable Care Act. He should get out more and, you know... meet real people. Like Krystal Ball who, although she once worked for MSNBC, apparently is listening and hearing and understands that hand-wringing over party unity misses the point; no one cares about your precious parties.
cont'
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-case-for-electability-or-do-you.html
The Case For Electability-- Or Do You Just NOT CARE That Much If Trump BECOMES President?
"...Hillary dead-enders-- from Biden, Reid, Feinstein and Debbie Wasserman Schultz down the food chain to the corporate media shills at MSNBC-- want you to believe it's all over. It isn't. It never will be. Because of us..."
-snip-
Well, it isn't so clear that Trump is going down as some anti-Trumpists predict. In fact, polling shows him generally in a decent position to win in November if the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate a candidate disliked and distrusted by so much of the electorate. Trump is gaining on Hillary. The Washington Post/ABC News poll released this morning reports that "Never in the history of the Post-ABC poll have the two major party nominees been viewed as harshly as Clinton and Trump. Nearly 6 in 10 registered voters say they have negative impressions of both major candidates. Overall, Clinton’s net negative rating among registered voters is minus-16, while Trump’s is minus-17, though Trump’s numbers have improved since March." Overall, Trump is beating her 46-44%. This morning Bernie told George Stephanopoulos that "We need a campaign, an election, coming up which does not have two candidates who are really very, very strongly disliked. I don't want to see the American people voting for the lesser of two evil. I want the American people to be voting for a vision of economic justice, of social justice, of environmental justice, of racial justice." Hillary-campers claim that once the primary is over and the Bernie backers coalesce around the nominee, everything will be fine. I wonder what they're smoking? Bernie's movement isn't a beauty contest about who has a better personality. The issues he raised during the campaign preclude large segments of his coalition from voting for Hillary or Trump. I'm sure many will get hoodwinked into voting for Hillary as "the lesser of two evils," but I suspect many will stay home and many will vote for Jill Stein.
Those same Hillary-campers who insist-- don't worry-- everything is going to be fine when Bernie gets out of the primary, don't seem to comprehend the degree of disdain his supporters have for everything Hillary stands for. Sorry, it's not Obama vs Clinton 2008 again. This one's about values. Saturday, Bernie's campaign released a polling memo from Tulchin Research, one I'm sure Bernie hopes the super-delegates will consider seriously before they nominate a candidate who is so weak that she can be beaten by Trump. Democrats seeking a presidential nominee to lead their party to victory in November should take notice of the overwhelming preponderance of data demonstrating that Bernie Sanders is the strongest Democratic candidate to defeat Donald Trump. For months, public polling has found Sanders running consistently better than Hillary Clinton against Trump both nationally and in key swing states across the country and that trend remains very much in tact today.
-snip-
Additionally, Sanders runs markedly better than Clinton against Trump in many key battleground states. In fact, Sanders leads Trump by wider margins than Clinton in all of the public polling that has been conducted in swing states over the past few months.
Krugman's cute Sanders dead-enders phraseology couldn't have been more effective to guarantee there would be inadequate post-convention unity than if Trump invented the term himself. But as everyone knows now, poor ole Paul has deluded himself into believing that Obama has ended inequality and Wall Street excess with (ever so slightly) higher tax rates, (an inadequate, compromised) Dodd-Frank Act and the (fraction of a loaf) Affordable Care Act. He should get out more and, you know... meet real people. Like Krystal Ball who, although she once worked for MSNBC, apparently is listening and hearing and understands that hand-wringing over party unity misses the point; no one cares about your precious parties.
As Hillary Clinton joylessly stumbles her way to the Democratic nomination, calls have increased for Bernie Sanders to either drop out of the race altogether or, at least, to stop fighting so darn hard. We’re told that Bernie should drop out for the good of the party. Bernie should drop out so that Hillary can make her general election “pivot” (which presumably means she can be free of the burden of pretending to be a liberal). Bernie should drop out so that Hillary can focus on Trump. According to this logic, Bernie and his band of loyalists need to get pragmatic, face the music, have a reality check. Hogwash. Doesn’t anyone see what I see? Bernie Sanders is our best chance to beat Donald Trump and to prove to the young voters backing him that the Democratic party actually stands for something.
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/krystal-ball/why-bernie-sanders-is-our_b_10064830.html
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/krystal-ball/why-bernie-sanders-is-our_b_10064830.html
cont'
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-case-for-electability-or-do-you.html
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
