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
Bill USA
Bill USA's Journal
Bill USA's Journal
August 24, 2016
MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I have the manual here, marking national classified security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little c's on them. Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?
JAMES COMEY: No. [...]
MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document? Right?
JAMES COMEY: Correct.
MATT CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?
JAMES COMEY: No. There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.
MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about what's classified and what's not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.
(more)
and the video:
Washington Post asked readers to submit ideas for an editorial - here's a link if anybody is
interested in commenting and asking WaPo why they haven't reported on the fact (for example)
... that FBI director Comey, when questioned by Rep Cartwright, had to admit that NOT ONE of the Clinton emails that are purported to contain Classified Info - NOT ONE had a Classified Header on it .. as required by the governing reg/manual. Thus, Comey confirmed that Clinton did NOT LIE about not sending or receiving anything marked Classified. (BTW: WaPo allows url's to be included in reader comments)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/08/24/vote-on-the-topic-for-a-future-washington-post-editorial/?utm_term=.be8b6547d1f8#comments
here's a Daily KOS article on this:
Comey tanks key GOP talking point, admits classified materials were not 'properly marked'
MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I have the manual here, marking national classified security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little c's on them. Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?
JAMES COMEY: No. [...]
MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document? Right?
JAMES COMEY: Correct.
MATT CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?
JAMES COMEY: No. There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.
MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about what's classified and what's not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.
(more)
and the video:
August 24, 2016
One of the economy’s bright spots is the job market — and it may be even brighter than it seems. Not only are there more jobs (1.3 million so far in 2016), but they may be better-paying, according to a new analysis by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The Fed economists report that middle-wage workers — earning roughly $30,000 to $60,000 — represent the fastest growing segment of the labor market. By contrast, earlier in the recovery, low-wage and high-wage jobs dominated employment increases.
The labor market was supposedly becoming economically “polarized,” just as society was becoming politically polarized. Now, the new analysis suggests that the labor-market polarization “may have peaked, and middle-wage jobs could be ready for a renaissance,” as my Post colleague Ylan Q. Mui wrote in a nice blog post on the New York Fed study.
Assuming that the trend lasts through Election Day, it’s probably a plus for Hillary Clinton. It doesn’t eliminate jobs as an issue, but it blunts discontent. Here’s what the New York Fed study reported.
Although middle-wage occupations represent about half of all jobs — teachers, factory workers, truck drivers, construction workers — they accounted for only 22 percent of new jobs between 2010 and 2013. Lower-wage occupations — earning $30,000 or less as fast-food workers, sales clerks, janitors — accounted for 40 percent of new jobs, well above their 30 percent share of existing employment. And high-paying occupations — with median wages of $60,000 or more, earned by doctors, lawyers, managers and engineers — represented 38 percent of new jobs, despite being only 20 percent of existing jobs.
(more)
The comeback of middle-wage jobs
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-comeback-of-middle-wage-jobs/2016/08/24/ab165bea-6a0a-11e6-ba32-5a4bf5aad4fa_story.html?utm_term=.0d9676989aa0One of the economy’s bright spots is the job market — and it may be even brighter than it seems. Not only are there more jobs (1.3 million so far in 2016), but they may be better-paying, according to a new analysis by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The Fed economists report that middle-wage workers — earning roughly $30,000 to $60,000 — represent the fastest growing segment of the labor market. By contrast, earlier in the recovery, low-wage and high-wage jobs dominated employment increases.
The labor market was supposedly becoming economically “polarized,” just as society was becoming politically polarized. Now, the new analysis suggests that the labor-market polarization “may have peaked, and middle-wage jobs could be ready for a renaissance,” as my Post colleague Ylan Q. Mui wrote in a nice blog post on the New York Fed study.
Assuming that the trend lasts through Election Day, it’s probably a plus for Hillary Clinton. It doesn’t eliminate jobs as an issue, but it blunts discontent. Here’s what the New York Fed study reported.
Although middle-wage occupations represent about half of all jobs — teachers, factory workers, truck drivers, construction workers — they accounted for only 22 percent of new jobs between 2010 and 2013. Lower-wage occupations — earning $30,000 or less as fast-food workers, sales clerks, janitors — accounted for 40 percent of new jobs, well above their 30 percent share of existing employment. And high-paying occupations — with median wages of $60,000 or more, earned by doctors, lawyers, managers and engineers — represented 38 percent of new jobs, despite being only 20 percent of existing jobs.
(more)
August 23, 2016
Although a conservative group investigating Hillary Clinton’s relationship with donors to the Clinton Foundation maintains that newly released emails prove she granted special “access” and “favors” during her State Department tenure, nonpartisan experts say that Judicial Watch is right about the former but has not yet proven the latter.
Their insights are important as the Clinton Foundation, the family’s charity, becomes a crucial flash point in the 2016 presidential campaign.
Clinton's Republican challenger, Donald Trump, is accusing the Democratic Party's nominee of “pay to play.” It's a narrative sure to continue after Trump hired Republican operative Steve Bannon, who wrote a documentary alleging the Clintons got rich from their connections with big business and foreign governments, as his campaign's CEO.
Judicial Watch, which obtained the emails through a Freedom of Information Act request, released 725 pages of documents Monday, including 20 exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department. It alleges Clinton’s former top aide, Huma Abedin, provided “special expedited access to the secretary of State” for donors who had contributed from $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. Many of the exchanges involve former top Foundation executive Doug Band.
(more)
Experts: New Clinton State Dept. emails show donor ‘access,’ not ‘favors’ - USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/08/23/experts-new-clinton-state-dept-emails-show-donor-access-not-favors/89118156/Although a conservative group investigating Hillary Clinton’s relationship with donors to the Clinton Foundation maintains that newly released emails prove she granted special “access” and “favors” during her State Department tenure, nonpartisan experts say that Judicial Watch is right about the former but has not yet proven the latter.
Their insights are important as the Clinton Foundation, the family’s charity, becomes a crucial flash point in the 2016 presidential campaign.
Clinton's Republican challenger, Donald Trump, is accusing the Democratic Party's nominee of “pay to play.” It's a narrative sure to continue after Trump hired Republican operative Steve Bannon, who wrote a documentary alleging the Clintons got rich from their connections with big business and foreign governments, as his campaign's CEO.
Judicial Watch, which obtained the emails through a Freedom of Information Act request, released 725 pages of documents Monday, including 20 exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department. It alleges Clinton’s former top aide, Huma Abedin, provided “special expedited access to the secretary of State” for donors who had contributed from $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. Many of the exchanges involve former top Foundation executive Doug Band.
(more)
August 19, 2016
(CNN) — Hillary Clinton told the FBI that her predecessor Colin Powell recommended that she use a private email account during her tenure as Secretary of State, according to a new report.
The New York Times reported on the revelation Thursday, based on notes from Clinton's interview with the FBI about her server that were delivered to Congress this week, and on a preview of a book about Bill Clinton's post-presidential years.
The notes from the FBI's interview with Clinton, conducted during its probe of the issue, reveal that she told investigators that Powell had advised her to use a private account.
Additionally, an excerpt from journalist Joe Conason's upcoming book on Bill Clinton, "Man of the World: The Further Endeavors of Bill Clinton," provides more detail.
(more)
Report: Clinton told FBI Powell advised use of private email
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/19/politics/hillary-clinton-colin-powell-email/(CNN) — Hillary Clinton told the FBI that her predecessor Colin Powell recommended that she use a private email account during her tenure as Secretary of State, according to a new report.
The New York Times reported on the revelation Thursday, based on notes from Clinton's interview with the FBI about her server that were delivered to Congress this week, and on a preview of a book about Bill Clinton's post-presidential years.
The notes from the FBI's interview with Clinton, conducted during its probe of the issue, reveal that she told investigators that Powell had advised her to use a private account.
Additionally, an excerpt from journalist Joe Conason's upcoming book on Bill Clinton, "Man of the World: The Further Endeavors of Bill Clinton," provides more detail.
(more)
August 19, 2016
House Republicans on Monday outlined their perjury case against Hillary Clinton in a letter to the US attorney for Washington, DC, naming specific inconsistencies in her public statements while under oath before Congress.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, asked US Attorney Channing Phillips to investigate Clinton in July after the FBI announced it wouldn't recommend charges against Clinton over her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.
At issue was FBI Director James Comey saying the agency's investigation found that Clinton sent and received classified information on her private email system, despite her earlier statements to the contrary.
~~
~~
They pointed to her testimony under oath before a congressional committee during which she said nothing on her server was marked classified at the time it was sent or received:
(more)
There are a few other statements that they cited but the one they start with is Hillary's statement that "nothing was marked classified at the time I sent or received it". They point to Comey's statement that "a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore the markings (my emphasis) indicating the presence of classified information.".
Of course, we now know that Comey was referring to letters "c" in two or three emails. This is NOT the same as "Marked Classified" as Rep Cartwright got Comey to admit in the House committee questioning of Comey's investigation into Clinton's handling of emails. Cartwright forced Comey to admit that NOT one of the emails he said contained classified information had the required Classified Header on it.
The issue of the emails not having Classified Info Headers on them is something I thought should be publicized and have brought up several times(and here) (to the dismay of some): e.g. that Clinton did not mention
Comey's admission about the lack of Classified Headers on her emails in her Fox interview ... and that none of the GOP toadies of M$M will bring up the lack of Classified Headers in any of their treatments of Clinton's emails.
Hopefully, this perjury "case" will not get very far with the U.S. Attorney for D.C., but it is a way to keep the talk going of Hillary's emails and questions (illigitimate though they are) about her truthfulness. The GOP is hoping that keeping questions about emails and whether she spoke truthfully about them or not - will keep the uninformed (i.e. people who get all their 'news' from M$M) thinking there must be a valid reason for continuing to ask these questions. Continuing to ask these questions implies that Clinton was not truthful, or at least sneaky about her emails. This is how disinformation and Big Lies work.
House Republicans outline their case against H. Clinton 4 perjury in letter to U.S. Attorney 4 D.C.
http://www.businessinsider.com/house-republicans-clinton-perjury-case-2016-8House Republicans on Monday outlined their perjury case against Hillary Clinton in a letter to the US attorney for Washington, DC, naming specific inconsistencies in her public statements while under oath before Congress.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, asked US Attorney Channing Phillips to investigate Clinton in July after the FBI announced it wouldn't recommend charges against Clinton over her use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.
At issue was FBI Director James Comey saying the agency's investigation found that Clinton sent and received classified information on her private email system, despite her earlier statements to the contrary.
~~
~~
They pointed to her testimony under oath before a congressional committee during which she said nothing on her server was marked classified at the time it was sent or received:
(more)
There are a few other statements that they cited but the one they start with is Hillary's statement that "nothing was marked classified at the time I sent or received it". They point to Comey's statement that "a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore the markings (my emphasis) indicating the presence of classified information.".
Of course, we now know that Comey was referring to letters "c" in two or three emails. This is NOT the same as "Marked Classified" as Rep Cartwright got Comey to admit in the House committee questioning of Comey's investigation into Clinton's handling of emails. Cartwright forced Comey to admit that NOT one of the emails he said contained classified information had the required Classified Header on it.
The issue of the emails not having Classified Info Headers on them is something I thought should be publicized and have brought up several times(and here) (to the dismay of some): e.g. that Clinton did not mention
Comey's admission about the lack of Classified Headers on her emails in her Fox interview ... and that none of the GOP toadies of M$M will bring up the lack of Classified Headers in any of their treatments of Clinton's emails.
Hopefully, this perjury "case" will not get very far with the U.S. Attorney for D.C., but it is a way to keep the talk going of Hillary's emails and questions (illigitimate though they are) about her truthfulness. The GOP is hoping that keeping questions about emails and whether she spoke truthfully about them or not - will keep the uninformed (i.e. people who get all their 'news' from M$M) thinking there must be a valid reason for continuing to ask these questions. Continuing to ask these questions implies that Clinton was not truthful, or at least sneaky about her emails. This is how disinformation and Big Lies work.
August 18, 2016
There are already reports that House Republicans are leaking classified information from Hillary Clinton’s FBI interview in violation of federal law.
Clinton campaign chair John Podesta tweeted that he is hearing that Republicans are leaking to reporters:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Podesta ✔ @johnpodesta
Already hearing from people who have been contacted by reporters with knowledge of the content of their interviews in FBI 302's. (1/2)
7:45 PM - 17 Aug 2016
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone knew that House Republicans were going to leak the classified information. The FBI was so sure that House Republicans were going to leak the information that they sent a warning along with the notes from Clinton’s interview that the information was classified.
The whole point behind the Republican desire to get the material was to try to drum up a new scandal that will take the focus off of Donald Trump and his imploding presidential campaign. House Republicans have been using the edited leak strategy to put out bits of misleading and out of context information since they took back the House majority.
(more)
House Republicans Break The Law By Leaking Classified Clinton FBI Interview Info
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/17/house-republicans-break-law-leaking-classified-clinton-fbi-interview-info.htmlThere are already reports that House Republicans are leaking classified information from Hillary Clinton’s FBI interview in violation of federal law.
Clinton campaign chair John Podesta tweeted that he is hearing that Republicans are leaking to reporters:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Podesta ✔ @johnpodesta
Already hearing from people who have been contacted by reporters with knowledge of the content of their interviews in FBI 302's. (1/2)
7:45 PM - 17 Aug 2016
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone knew that House Republicans were going to leak the classified information. The FBI was so sure that House Republicans were going to leak the information that they sent a warning along with the notes from Clinton’s interview that the information was classified.
The whole point behind the Republican desire to get the material was to try to drum up a new scandal that will take the focus off of Donald Trump and his imploding presidential campaign. House Republicans have been using the edited leak strategy to put out bits of misleading and out of context information since they took back the House majority.
(more)
August 17, 2016
here's the correct link: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/trump-reveals-national-security-plan-clinton-says-doesnt-one/
Hillary says: Donald says he has a secret plan. It turns out the secret is he HAS no plan
here's the correct link: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/trump-reveals-national-security-plan-clinton-says-doesnt-one/
August 17, 2016
Stephen Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News whom Donald Trump has appointed as his new campaign CEO, hasn't been shy about trading in on the deepest fringes of conspiracy theories against Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff. Just a month before taking the helm of Trump's campaign, Bannon used his Sirius XM radio show to question whether one of Clinton's closest aides is tied to Muslim terrorists.
On July 5, Bannon invited Trump pal Roger Stone onto his daily radio show, Breitbart News Daily, to talk about Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide and vice chair of her 2016 campaign. Abedin has long been at the center of discredited, racist conspiracy theories thanks to her Muslim heritage, and Bannon and Stone happily treaded into those waters during the July interview. "You've got more breaking news on Huma Abedin," Bannon kicked off. "By the way, Roger, I still can't figure out how she got the security clearance. Can you help me out here?"
"It's very, very hard to understand because of her ties to the Muslim World League." Stone replied. "And the league's ties to extremism and to terrorism, to an organization, a trust, which funded the actual attack on America on 9/11 are inexorable. This is a fact; this isn't fiction. And Hillary continues to dodge all of these questions."
The fringes of conservatism have spent years questioning Abedin based on little more than her ethnicity. In 2012, former Rep. Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican, sent a letter to the State Department requesting an investigation into Abedin's supposed ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Her letter was widely condemned, even by fellow Republican John McCain and the conservative Daily Caller.
(more)
Trump Campaign's New CEO Peddled Conspiracy Theories About Clinton Team - MotherJones
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/stephen-bannon-breitbart-huma-abedin-roger-stone-donald-trumpStephen Bannon, the executive chairman of Breitbart News whom Donald Trump has appointed as his new campaign CEO, hasn't been shy about trading in on the deepest fringes of conspiracy theories against Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff. Just a month before taking the helm of Trump's campaign, Bannon used his Sirius XM radio show to question whether one of Clinton's closest aides is tied to Muslim terrorists.
On July 5, Bannon invited Trump pal Roger Stone onto his daily radio show, Breitbart News Daily, to talk about Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide and vice chair of her 2016 campaign. Abedin has long been at the center of discredited, racist conspiracy theories thanks to her Muslim heritage, and Bannon and Stone happily treaded into those waters during the July interview. "You've got more breaking news on Huma Abedin," Bannon kicked off. "By the way, Roger, I still can't figure out how she got the security clearance. Can you help me out here?"
"It's very, very hard to understand because of her ties to the Muslim World League." Stone replied. "And the league's ties to extremism and to terrorism, to an organization, a trust, which funded the actual attack on America on 9/11 are inexorable. This is a fact; this isn't fiction. And Hillary continues to dodge all of these questions."
The fringes of conservatism have spent years questioning Abedin based on little more than her ethnicity. In 2012, former Rep. Michele Bachmann, a Minnesota Republican, sent a letter to the State Department requesting an investigation into Abedin's supposed ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Her letter was widely condemned, even by fellow Republican John McCain and the conservative Daily Caller.
(more)
August 17, 2016
WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump's campaign chairman helped a pro-Russian governing party in Ukraine secretly route at least $2.2 million in payments to two prominent Washington lobbying firms in 2012, and did so in a way that effectively obscured the foreign political party's efforts to influence U.S. policy.
The revelation, provided to The Associated Press by people directly knowledgeable about the effort, comes at a time when Trump has faced criticism for his friendly overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin. It also casts new light on the business practices of campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
Under federal law, U.S. lobbyists must declare publicly if they represent foreign leaders or their political parties and provide detailed reports about their actions to the Justice Department. A violation is a felony and can result in up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.
Trump shook up his campaign organization Wednesday, putting two new longtime Republican conservative strategists as chief executive officer and campaign manager. It was unclear what impact the shakeup would have on Manafort, but he retains his title as campaign chairman.
(more)
... of course, this isn't nearly as important as Hillary's unmarked "classified" emails...
thanks to DemocratSinceBirth for the tip...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2369972
AP Sources: Manafort tied to undisclosed foreign lobbying
http://www.mediaite.com/online/exclusive-nbcs-andy-lack-to-meet-with-keith-olbermann-on-possible-msnbc-return/WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump's campaign chairman helped a pro-Russian governing party in Ukraine secretly route at least $2.2 million in payments to two prominent Washington lobbying firms in 2012, and did so in a way that effectively obscured the foreign political party's efforts to influence U.S. policy.
The revelation, provided to The Associated Press by people directly knowledgeable about the effort, comes at a time when Trump has faced criticism for his friendly overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin. It also casts new light on the business practices of campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
Under federal law, U.S. lobbyists must declare publicly if they represent foreign leaders or their political parties and provide detailed reports about their actions to the Justice Department. A violation is a felony and can result in up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.
Trump shook up his campaign organization Wednesday, putting two new longtime Republican conservative strategists as chief executive officer and campaign manager. It was unclear what impact the shakeup would have on Manafort, but he retains his title as campaign chairman.
(more)
... of course, this isn't nearly as important as Hillary's unmarked "classified" emails...
thanks to DemocratSinceBirth for the tip...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2369972
August 16, 2016
The FBI has turned over to the GOP-controlled Congress a variety of material from its criminal probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state, said federal law enforcement sources on Tuesday.
That material includes an investigative summary from the FBI’s probe of Clinton; reports known as “302s” containing interviews with the Democratic presidential nominee and others; and classified emails found on her private server. FBI Director James B. Comey announced in early July he would not recommend charges against Clinton despite finding that she and her staffers were “extremely careless” in their use of the server.
Several House committees received the documents, including the Oversight and Government Reform, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Judiciary panels.
“The FBI has turned over a ‘number of documents’ related to their investigation of former Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email server. Committee staff is currently reviewing the information that is classified SECRET. There are no further details at this time,” said an Oversight spokesman.
(more)
FBI turns over Clinton email probe documents to Congress. Comey to be awarded the Watergate Abuse of
Power award. (I mean, he should be._Bill USA)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/08/16/hillary-clinton-interviews-by-fbi-have-been-delivered-to-congress/
The FBI has turned over to the GOP-controlled Congress a variety of material from its criminal probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state, said federal law enforcement sources on Tuesday.
That material includes an investigative summary from the FBI’s probe of Clinton; reports known as “302s” containing interviews with the Democratic presidential nominee and others; and classified emails found on her private server. FBI Director James B. Comey announced in early July he would not recommend charges against Clinton despite finding that she and her staffers were “extremely careless” in their use of the server.
Several House committees received the documents, including the Oversight and Government Reform, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Judiciary panels.
“The FBI has turned over a ‘number of documents’ related to their investigation of former Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email server. Committee staff is currently reviewing the information that is classified SECRET. There are no further details at this time,” said an Oversight spokesman.
(more)
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PMNumber of posts: 6,436
