Is this the Republican Underground ? LOL....Give me a break.

fund the George H.W. Bush school of government ? Is this the Republican Underground now ?

exchanged with old Sidney. When they seized his records they found them and released 6 heavily redacted emails. He was working for the Clinton Foundation--not the State Department. BIG no-no.

after his career to teach. G H W Bush is from Texas, so no fucking surprise that the Law School is named after him.

Please do some intelligent reading before knee-jerk reacting to something like the name of a school next time so I don't have to lambaste you with the double face palm.

?1

And they support it. Pitiful!

On behalf of the other members of our board I apologize for the insolent manner in which your interlocutor addressed you.

And as far as funding goes, I suspect you'll find as much funding from the government as well as the wealthy on both the left and the right. The poster offered no evidence for shooting down an entire school that is part of a public university.

As someone whose raison d'etre has become fostering comity in our online community I implore all of us to treat one another with love, kindness, and respect.

No need for me to opine on the imbroglio to which you refer as my thoughts are already well know.

It is a public school. Chairs, like every where else are funded by private donors. Some I know, gasp, democrats

This level of ignorance can be corrected if there is a will. It's called...books

Not only did you insult another member of our online community:

If we appeal to his better angels maybe we can get him to modify his behavior.

A person can be an ass with polite words as readily as they can with rude words. Hiding nasty intentions behind platitudinous poppycock is the height of hidden hostility.

I was merely making a request for comity on a board I have participated in and financially sustained for nearly thirteen years.

And perhaps your issue is not with me as much as it is with the administrators of this board, whom in their infinite wisdom provided us with this admonition:

which seems to be a major pattern with Clinton supporters here

I would suggest fair, open, honest discussion with respect for differing points of view, rather than game-playing and patronizing faux-respect that drips which contempt for the individual you are addressing.

But we both know that's not going to happen, don't we?

Doubling down on patronizing contempt is... well, contemptible.

Your methods as transparent as cellophane, do you really think you're fooling anyone?

Comity is the cross I have chose to bear.

not.

And you got an amazing amount of time on your hands.

I suppose if you were posting here as a paid campaign worker, you wouldn't admit to it, so asking is futile.

I consider it a form of penance. By folks taking their anger out on me it means less time for them to take their anger out on others.

Nobody believes your snide attitude is even slightly genuine, not for a moment. You come across as more and more arrogant and insulting with every false "sir" you type.

Try talking like a real human being and you'll get more positive responses. The way you're talking right now, you may as well just have your middle finger out, because that's the message you're sending (not like you didn't know that already).

Five accusatory, four laudatory, and one neutral.

And the responses break down among partisan lines.


That's the truth.

Was one of your posts hidden or was it not for personally attacking me?

If it wasn't let me apologize now for asking you.

Thank you in advance.

Surely, there is at least one HRC supporter you could find who is going beyond the standard you employ here.

I have called out my fellow supporters for contributing to the acrimony...


OTOH , since we are so few in number it does behoove us to stand by one another lest we be bereft of all allies. That explains my reluctance to do it with more frequency.

I am constantly reminded of Nietzsche's admonition to "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster."

Thanks for you efforts.

Not surprising that Hillary supporters use her favorite tactic. Great way to hijack a thread and avoid addressing the OP.

Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently compared the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of State with former CIA director David Petraeus’ federal conviction for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified information.

After 10 years working for the MIC and having SCI level access I remember my debriefing very clearly. This guy is accurate. I would face trial, fines, possibly jail, for doing things HRC did. Is she not subject to the laws of this country?

after the illegal invasion of Iraq, sanctioned torture, and no

convictions for the wolves of Wall Street.

We have a 2 tier justice system.

We have a broken corrupt government.

The 1% buy the best representation and all the rights and privileges that come with their wealth.

The 99% pay taxes and have zero representation.

it's pretty easy to find Here's a section that may apply to Hillary

standard. It means wanton or wilful misconduct, not just garden variety negligence. Very difficult to prove.

1. She is documented asking staffers to remove classified status when they couldn't operate the secure fax.
2. She was told not to use a blackberry on multiple occasions due to security risk. She proceeded to integrate this blackberry with her server
3. She knowingly employed Pagliano with the State when he was her employee as well, which is illegal.

is to legally esablish gross negligence. Wanton and wilful conduct is a very, very high burden to meet.

Seriously. That's true.

of 'gross negligence'.

I think its the damages part of normal negligence cases that is unusual for classified material. I'm not an expert, but I do have a good deal of experience handing the type of classified material under discussion. As I recall there's no requirement to prove damage has resulted from the mishandling. If I remove something from its designated, secure environment, it doesn't have to be stolen or lost or seen by unauthorized persons for me to have been negligent.

It does not mean willfully or wanton conduct. It means a higher level of indifference to the duty of due care in performing an action then simple carelessness. It is actually kind of hard to truly define but it is a standard of indifference .. Not willful intention. Just look it upon line.

Regardless you are right thatit is somewhat hard to prove.

Clearly the reason she did this, as Bob Kerry pointed out last year, was to try to keep her communication as Secretary of State away from where it could be exposed via FOIA requests. She travels with an entourage and couldn't manage 2 cell phones?

I do think that argument is pathetically weak ... even if true. Not to mention, once she used the one blackberry on her own server, she easily could have had two accounts - or preferably 3 - 1 private, 2 State Department, 3 Clinton Foundation, political etc.

I just searched YouTube to find and post it. Lo and behold, Kerrey was on Fox this morning, basically making the same argument he made last year. (note one Fox "journalist" repeating the 140+ people investigating that was denied last week)

He always was someone willing to be outspoken. It is impressive that he both supports her and agrees she did the wrong thing here. He did have a pretty interesting point on FOIA --- that Congress wrote the law so it does not apply to themselves.

Incidentially, I met Kerrey when he was President of New School, where one of my daughters did her undergraduate work. (He and New School were not the best match!) From memory, there was a lot of history between him and the Clintons. He had a very contentious run against Clinton in 1992 and he was not quite a "sure" vote in the Senate for the Clinton. He did however support Clinton in 2008 and then ignominiously spoke of Obama attending madrassahs. Even ignoring any view of his actions in Vietnam, he is pretty much a loose cannon.

The author was a political appointee in the Reagan/Bush DOJ.

Which is why Bernie fans trust him--otherwise he would have served in the Clinton/Obama administrations, and we know what the Indictment Fairy clappers think of our Democratic presidents.

You are a creature of habit.

Comity is the cross I have chosen to bear.

I can only appeal to your better angels and implore you to eschew bullying behavior. I am the third, errr, fourth person in this thread you have bullied.

Please don't shoot the messenger.



*I for one, respect the confidentiality of all messages, regardless of their nature, sent to me, including yours.

PM from you:

Several posters have disrespected, deligitimized, and dehumanized me. Because of the vagaries of the jury process my posts were hidden when I deigned to defend myself. That is why the administrators in their infinite wisdom made several modification to the jury system.

In this thread you have addressed me , Tarc, Geek Tragedy, and TrustBuster. in a hostile manner. In fact some of them have alluded to your behavior in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511643417#post11


http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511643417#post27

Again, I humbly request you rely on your better angels and treat your fellow members with more kindness, love , and respect.

Thank you in advance.

As an empathetic individual it is okay you are taking your frustration out on me. It means less time for you to take your frustration out on somebody else. In fact when you feel the desire to become aggressive with another poster you get aggressive with me. I promise not to respond in kind and call on the other denizens of this board to remind me if I stray.


This board needs more love and kindness.

far worse than it has to be. I'm sure others have expressed a similar sentiment. You should take the message to heart and tweak the persona a bit by dropping the online passive aggressive bullying.

It is interesting that several of my detractors have more hides than me and almost to a one, all post in the same group. That would lead a fair and unbiased person to conclude it's the messenger and not the message.

You certainly don't see DSB swearing at folks, calling them ignorant, and giving them demeaning salutations in this thread.

Again, as an empathetic individual I am glad to be a receptacle for their anger because it means others will not be, as there is less time for them to turn their anger on others.


Love is the answer.

What is interesting is that a poster on this board was doxed and her and her family members were contacted.


Where's the outrage?

I am interested to see evidence that the poster's family was contacted, though. If that happened, it's positively wrong.

Point one- I would never reveal a private message to me, regardless of the tone, unless it contains a credible physical threat, i.e. the poster actually knows where I live.

Point two-I have to be careful what I post here because I don't want my post hidden.

Point three- The poster who was doxed has provided physical evidence.

P.S. I am not comfortable discussing it further here, for obvious reasons, and now I am uncomfortable in discussing things in private, for also obvious reasons.

If IN FACT this happened, it would not be against TOS to reveal the information, redacted.

It is a matter of public record that a member of this board received a hostile letter at her home. That letter and envelope has been published here. That person has also said a family member has been contacted. The first claim was easily verified. The second claim could be as well, with greater difficulty. However that just complicates the life of a person whose only crime is being outspoken.

In fact I will put you in touch with the party, provided I am assured confidentiality is maintained. That seems fair.

like smoke and mirrors.

PM Message from DSB:

from rightwing websites like Daily Caller and Fox News.

I like my suggestion better. You and yours should follow my suggestion.

In fact, he's spoken out on RW policy as noted above.

Indictment? Probably not. Voting is the best more sure fire way to get things done.

How can we make informed decisions if we don't have the information? We are finally facing, head on, why we need to address election fraud, and all the many ways an election can be corrupted, and or outright theft.

Clinton did something criminal and should be "brought to heel" or not. Will it happen?

...what Clinton set up a private email server FOR.

Private email server is unprecedented, as I understand it. It appears to have been an attempt to prevent FOIA discovery. It also appears to have been an attempt to prevent President Obama, security agencies, intelligence agencies and others from knowing what Sec Clinton was doing. It mixed up State Department work and private, personal communication. When ordered to produce the emails from the private server, Clinton had her techs delete 30,000 of them, saying they were all "personal." They were recovered, however, and some are NOT "personal." This private email server was insecure and hackable. (It was also at an insecure location--Clinton's home in NY.)

Given all of this, we need to ask (and if *I* were the FBI, I would be asking): Why was Sec of Clinton taking such risks with national security, and, consequently, with her own liability for national security? What do the deleted work emails and related information point to?

What I gather from various summaries of this case that I've read is that the deleted work emails point to the Clinton Foundation and Sydney Blumenthal (whom President Obama had forbidden to work at the State Department and had then been hired by the Clinton Foundation, i.e., no security clearance). What was Blumenthal doing? Among other things, he was trying to drum up business for his friends in post-stable Libya (the sort of work Cheney's Halliburton got no-bid contracts for, i.e., 'reconstruction' or military infrastructure). He was also passing word-for-word, top secret NSA information to Clinton.

The other area to look at, i.e., the Clinton Foundation, would be coordination between Sec Clinton's decisions such as on arms deals favorable to foreign governments and those foreign governments making big fat contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Called "pay-to-play." In the case of Saudi Arabia it was "pay-to-kill" (pay the Clinton Foundation to get Sec Clinton to sign off on the latest U.S. weapons to kill lots of innocent people in Yemen, which the Saudis apparently want to acquire, or at least control). There were at least 20 countries with business before the Sec Clinton's State Dept. who gave large contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

The above (amassing a gigantic Clinton Foundation slush fund) would be motive to create a private server that was outside the scrutiny of other agencies and removed also from FOIA requests. It would be reason to take the risks to national security that Clinton took.

That Clinton created this private server merely for convenience--not for shady, corrupt and/or criminal activity--I suppose is plausible to Clinton supporters. I don't believe it. It's now up to a presumably neutral party--the FBI--to determine WHY she did this. I don't think they're looking only at the security issues. I also think there are obstruction of justice questions (the deleted work emails, for one thing).

from a Hillary Presidency and gives us a Bernie Presidency!!!

The SOS hardly needs to do that.

That is hardly "gross negligence." That's where you are not paying any attention at all.

Also the information has to be able to be used against the US or in favor of some foreign country.

specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with … any document ... or information relating to the national defense … through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.

that no one be able to get into it.

It might even be safer seeing as Eddie Snowden hacked the government.

The act of mishandling classified information is all that's required for it to be "gross negligence". It doesn't require theft; it doesn't require anyone unauthorized seeing the material - there is no requirement to prove damage occurred beyond the act of mishandling.