Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (6 Viewers)

timschochet said:

The Commish said:

timschochet said:

It's difficult for me to define gravitas. I know it when I see it, to paraphrase Potter Stewart (who was talking about obscenity or pornography, lol). I would say it includes dignity. I believe Hillary has great dignity and she displayed it during that 11 hour hearing.

Yet Richard Nixon had less dignity than Hillary does IMO, but he had great gravitas. His trip to China changed foreign relations for all time in our country. That is the sort of magnificent decision I will expect from Hillary if she is elected. These are serious times; we need a serious person in the White House.

Click to expand...

So, you are choosing a single word to define her that you don't really know how to define? Seems about right

It's telling that you mention a single example of her dignity on display yet don't mention the complete lack thereof all the times she allows the political climate to change her POV on significant topics of importance.

Click to expand...

Id prefer if she was a little more consistent but unfortunately some in the Democratic Party have gone a little off the deep end, and she needs to win the nomination before she can win the election. I don't like it much, but I'll take her pragmatism over Bernie's ideological rigidity any day of the week.

Click to expand...

IvanKaramazov said:

at "gravitas."

Click to expand...

Johnnymac said:

timschochet said:

How can we tell serious from not serious? Bernie, Hillary, and Barack all share a left of center ideology. Yet when we were faced with an economic crisis which might easily have brought about a second Great Depression, Hillary and Obama abandoned their ideology and supported TARP, because they knew it had to be done. Bernie, along with the soon to be Tea Party Republicans, opposed TARP and nearly defeated it. That's how you know who the grown ups are and who the kids are. Bernie, despite his age, is a kid.

Click to expand...

To be fair, we don't know what the outcome would have been if TARP was defeated. I, for one, did not agree with it and still don't. Wall street was allowed to gamble other people's money at very high risk with zero consequences. Not a very good precednt to set imo.

Click to expand...

Slapdash said:

"Adults" like Hillary loosened the regulations that allowed the financial sector to collapse in the first. She is still arguing for polices that make the sector more risky. She has been taking massive donations from these firms for years. And we are supposed to be impressed that she voted to use other people's money to save them?

Click to expand...

Moms and Daughters Debate Gender Factor in Hillary Clinton’s Bid...

But for her daughter, electing a woman, while a nice idea, is not a motivating factor. “I want to see someone who, like, has the fervor to fight for me,” Anna Schierenbeck said. A woman will be elected president “pretty soon” anyway, she said, regardless of what happens in 2016. Why does that woman have to be Mrs. Clinton?

...

It is a powerful line for Mrs. Clinton’s most avid supporters: college-educated women in their 50s and 60s. “For baby boomer women, in particular, it’s ‘I fought this whole war, and now we’re running out of time, and if not Hillary, then who would it be?’ ” said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who is herself a baby boomer.

But younger women are less impressed.

Meghan Speed, a 20-year-old college junior from Concord, N.C., said she expected a woman to be elected president in the next 20 years, but planned to vote for Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary because of his record on issues like income inequality.

“For me it was very difficult to wrap my mind around not fully supporting Hillary, because she is a woman,” she said. “But I came to the realization that if I am supporting her because she is a woman, that’s equally as bad as not supporting her because of her gender.”

...The Democratic primary provides Mrs. Clinton with an opportunity to lay the groundwork among a constituency she would rely on heavily in a general election. Fifty-two percent of women lean Democratic, compared with 44 percent of men, but young women and black and Latino women, in particular, will not participate in an election unless they are inspired by a candidate, according to polling by the Pew Research Center.

...

That Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy has not yet sparked among young women the kind of excitement about making history that Mr. Obama generated among black voters in 2008 speaks to the progress that women have made, said Erin Gloria Ryan, 32, formerly the managing editor of the feminist website Jezebel.

“The younger generation” — of which Ms. Ryan counts herself a member — “just thinks the pipeline will magically fill up with women who are qualified enough to run for president,” she said.

The generational gap haunted Mrs. Clinton in the 2008 primary: In Iowa, Mr. Obama took 51 percent, John Edwards 19 percent and Mrs. Clinton just 11 percent of the caucus vote among women younger than 24. The only demographic cohort that Mrs. Clinton won, exit polls showed, was women older than 65.

...Mrs. Clinton’s standing among white women has declined in some recent polls, but women remain the backbone of her support. More than half of all women said they had a favorable opinion of Mrs. Clinton, compared with 36 percent of men, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released this month.

But just 38 percent of women aged 18 to 29 said they supported Mrs. Clinton in the Democratic primary, compared with 40 percent for Mr. Sanders, according to a poll of 2,011 young people released Thursday by Harvard’s Institute of Politics.

...

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

timschochet said:

It's difficult for me to define gravitas. I know it when I see it, to paraphrase Potter Stewart (who was talking about obscenity or pornography, lol). I would say it includes dignity. I believe Hillary has great dignity and she displayed it during that 11 hour hearing.

Yet Richard Nixon had less dignity than Hillary does IMO, but he had great gravitas. His trip to China changed foreign relations for all time in our country. That is the sort of magnificent decision I will expect from Hillary if she is elected. These are serious times; we need a serious person in the White House.

Click to expand...

Ah, dignity:

Bill was so slutty, Hillary demanded he get an HIV test: bookIn their new book “Bill & Hillary: So This Is That Thing Called Love,” from Blood Moon Productions, Darwin Porter and Danforth Prince claim that due to Bill Clinton’s reputed prolific philandering, Hillary once demanded that he be tested for HIV, since “he favored unprotected sex.”

The book claims both Clintons were relieved that the results were negative.

Among other bizarre allegations in the exhaustive and highly unauthorized examination of the Clintons’ political lives, from their Arkansas days to today, is that Bill had the hots for former first lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.

The authors claim Bill “tried to seduce her” in her Fifth Avenue apartment.

“We almost indulged in a wrestling match. It was most embarrassing,” they report Jackie told friend Katharine Graham, the former Washington Post publisher.

“I mean, I was flattered that I turned him on so much at my age, but Bill was just like Jack [Kennedy] in the sense that neither of them wanted to take ‘no’ for an answer. Ever since that day, I prefer not to be alone with Bill.”

The book claims that while Graham didn’t spill the beans, she once repeated the anecdote to Truman Capote over dinner, and he spread the story.

The book is due out on Dec. 21. A rep for the Clintons said: “[is it] possible to quote me laughing at the sheer absurdity of this story?”

Click to expand...

- Can't wait for the Clintons to make the White House dignified again.

Click to expand...

Apple Jack said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

timschochet said:

It's difficult for me to define gravitas. I know it when I see it, to paraphrase Potter Stewart (who was talking about obscenity or pornography, lol). I would say it includes dignity. I believe Hillary has great dignity and she displayed it during that 11 hour hearing.

Yet Richard Nixon had less dignity than Hillary does IMO, but he had great gravitas. His trip to China changed foreign relations for all time in our country. That is the sort of magnificent decision I will expect from Hillary if she is elected. These are serious times; we need a serious person in the White House.

Click to expand...

Ah, dignity:

Bill was so slutty, Hillary demanded he get an HIV test: bookIn their new book “Bill & Hillary: So This Is That Thing Called Love,” from Blood Moon Productions, Darwin Porter and Danforth Prince claim that due to Bill Clinton’s reputed prolific philandering, Hillary once demanded that he be tested for HIV, since “he favored unprotected sex.”

The book claims both Clintons were relieved that the results were negative.

Among other bizarre allegations in the exhaustive and highly unauthorized examination of the Clintons’ political lives, from their Arkansas days to today, is that Bill had the hots for former first lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.

The authors claim Bill “tried to seduce her” in her Fifth Avenue apartment.

“We almost indulged in a wrestling match. It was most embarrassing,” they report Jackie told friend Katharine Graham, the former Washington Post publisher.

“I mean, I was flattered that I turned him on so much at my age, but Bill was just like Jack [Kennedy] in the sense that neither of them wanted to take ‘no’ for an answer. Ever since that day, I prefer not to be alone with Bill.”

The book claims that while Graham didn’t spill the beans, she once repeated the anecdote to Truman Capote over dinner, and he spread the story.

The book is due out on Dec. 21. A rep for the Clintons said: “[is it] possible to quote me laughing at the sheer absurdity of this story?”

Click to expand...

- Can't wait for the Clintons to make the White House dignified again.

Click to expand...

Dignity in the Presidency has little to nothing to do with the women you are #######, and everything to do with the masses you are #######.

Click to expand...

Edward Klein is an alumnus of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and was a foreign correspondent with United Press International. He was Newsweek’s assistant managing editor for one year, its foreign editor for seven years, and a Vanity Fair contributing editor for 26. He has written nine other non-fiction volumes, three novels, and an anthology.

Click to expand...

Former Aides: Hillary Served Clinton Foundation at State

As America’s top diplomat, she mainly promoted the Clintons’ private charities. If not a smoking gun, veteran journalist Edward Klein exposes a smoldering pistol in his new book about Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton. Unlikeable: The Problem with Hillary cites three of her former State Department colleagues who saw Clinton weave her diplomatic duties with her financial interests in the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative. They also report that Clinton let her foreign-policy responsibilities take a back seat to her presidential ambitions. These three sources insisted on anonymity. “The Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative have very distinct logos. . . . Often, when I went into the secretary of state’s conference room, I saw those logos on papers that were strewn all over the big table,” one of Clinton’s college interns told Klein. This observer’s low rank gave him surprisingly high-level exposure to Clinton and her confidantes. “It was like I was the invisible man,” he said. “Nobody gave me a second look. They obviously didn’t think it mattered what a young intern saw, so they didn’t make an effort to hide anything from me.” What the intern observed was chilling.
“They were fund-raising papers with the names and dates of contacts on them. There was no mistaking the fact that Hillary and her closest advisers at State were working on foundation and Global Initiative business.” The intern recalled one of Hillary’s conversations from late 2012. Soon after she visited Russia, “Hillary came into the office wearing one of those Russian fur hats,” the intern said. “That was the day I overheard her talking on her cell phone, discussing a contribution to the foundation from a Russian guy. I knew he was Russian because she turned to Huma and said, ‘The f***ing translator is so ####### slow with the Russian.’” The intern also remembered standing in Hillary’s office while she was on the phone and especially grumpy. “The one thing I heard her say was, ‘Bill, I won’t do that. I won’t say that. You tell the president you don’t want to see him, if that’s how you feel.’” The intern added, “The last thing I heard was Hillary saying, ‘Oh, f*** off, Bill!’ and then she threw the cell phone on the floor and it bounced off the rug.”

One Foreign Service officer with more than two decades at State found Clinton — to be diplomatic — distracted. “In 2012, her priorities were first, raising money for her presidential run; second, raising money for the Clinton Foundation; and third, tending to the business of foreign policy,” the FSO said. Clinton “had to meet with foreign ministers and other dignitaries, but those meetings seemed rushed and pro forma,” the FSO added. “Her real passions were the Clinton Foundation and talking to political strategists like John Podesta, James Carville, Paul Begala, and others. She met in her seventh-floor office with political bundlers, and she had long conversations on strategy with Bill.” “In my time at State, I never saw a secretary so disconnected from her job,” the FSO continued. “She seemed to consider the running of U.S. foreign policy a side job. She was focused on getting the big job — the White House. Everything was about keeping information about her campaign plans from leaking back to the Obama White House. She didn’t trust anybody but her small inner circle. She was completely paranoid, whispering, covering her mouth in case somebody could read lips.” “When she flew on her Air Force C-32,” another career Foreign Service officer remembered, “Hillary took along stacks of papers in manila folders that were marked ‘CF’ and ‘CGO’ — the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global initiative. They had dividers labeled ‘Donations,’ ‘Fund Raising,’ ‘AIDS/HIV,’ ‘Haiti,’ and so forth.”
“She didn’t try to cover up her involvement with the foundation,” the FSO added. “In her mind, there was no conflict of interest.”
...

Click to expand...

Slapdash said:

Hillary Clinton Is Whitewashing the Financial Catastrophe

She has a plan that she claims will reform Wall Streetbut shes deflecting responsibility from old friends and donors in the industry.

By William Greider

Hillary Clintons recent op-ed in The New York Times, How Id Rein In Wall Street, was intended to reassure nervous Democrats who fear she is still in thrall to those mega-bankers of New York who crashed the American economy. Clintons brisk recital of plausible reform ideas might convince wishful thinkers who are not familiar with the complexities of banking. But informed skeptics, myself included, see a disturbing message in her argument that ought to alarm innocent supporters.

Candidate Clinton is essentially whitewashing the financial catastrophe. She has produced a clumsy rewrite of what caused the 2008 collapse, one that conveniently leaves her husband out of the story. He was the president who legislated the predicate for Wall Streets meltdown. Hillary Clintons redefinition of the reform problem deflects the blame from Wall Streets most powerful institutions, like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, and instead fingers less celebrated players that failed. In roundabout fashion, Hillary Clinton sounds like she is assuring old friends and donors in the financial sector that, if she becomes president, she will not come after them.

The seminal event that sowed financial disaster was the repeal of the New Deals Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which had separated banking into different realms: investment banks, which organize capital investors for risk-taking ventures; and deposit-holding banks, which serve people as borrowers and lenders. That laws repeal, a great victory for Wall Street, was delivered by Bill Clinton in 1999, assisted by the Federal Reserve and the financial sectors armies of lobbyists. The universal banking model was saluted as a modernizing reform that liberated traditional banks to participate directly and indirectly in long-prohibited and vastly more profitable risk-taking.

Exotic financial instruments like derivatives and credit-default swaps flourished, enabling old-line bankers to share in the fun and profit on an awesome scale. The banks invented guarantees against loss and sold them to both companies and market players. The fast-expanding financial sector claimed a larger and larger share of the economy (and still does) at the expense of the real economy of producers and consumers. The interconnectedness across market sectors created the illusion of safety. When illusions failed, these connected guarantees became the dragnet that drove panic in every direction. Ultimately, the federal government had to rescue everyone, foreign and domestic, to stop the bleeding.

Yet Hillary Clinton asserts in her Times op-ed that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it. She claims that Glass-Steagall would not have limited the reckless behavior of institutions like Lehman Brothers or insurance giant AIG, which were not traditional banks. Her argument amounts to facile evasion that ignores the interconnected exposures. The Federal Reserve spent $180 billion bailing out AIG so AIG could pay back Goldman Sachs and other banks. If the Fed hadnt acted and had allowed AIG to fail, the banks would have gone down too.

These sound like esoteric questions of bank regulation (and they are), but the consequences of pretending they do not matter are enormous. The federal government and Federal Reserve would remain on the hook for rescuing losers in a future crisis. The largest and most adventurous banks would remain free to experiment, inventing fictitious guarantees and selling them to eager suckers. If things go wrong, Uncle Sam cleans up the mess.

Senator Elizabeth Warren and other reformers are pushing a simpler remedyrestore the Glass-Steagall principles and give citizens a safe, government-insured place to store their money. Banking should be boring, Warren explains (her co-sponsor is GOP Senator John McCain).

Thats a hard sell in politics, given the banking sectors bear hug of Congress and the White House, its callous manipulation of both political parties. Of course, it is more complicated than that. But recreating a safe, stable banking systema place where ordinary people can keep their moneyought to be the first benchmark for Democrats who claim to be reformers.

Actually, the most compelling witnesses for Senator Warrens argument are the two bankers who introduced this adventure in universal banking back in the 1990s. They used their political savvy and relentless muscle to seduce Bill Clinton and his so-called New Democrats. John Reed was CEO of Citicorp and led the charge. He has since apologized to the nation. Sandy Weill was chairman of the board and a brilliant financier who envisioned the possibilities of a single, all-purpose financial house, freed of governments narrow-minded regulations. They won politically, but at staggering cost to the country.

Weill confessed error back in 2012: What we should probably do is go and split up investment banking from banking. Have banks do something thats not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, thats not going to be too big to fail.

John Reeds confession explained explicitly why their modernizing crusade failed for two fundamental business reasons. One was the belief that combining all types of finance into one institution would drive costs downand the larger institution the more efficient it would be, Reed wrote in the Financial Times in November. Reed said, We now know that there are very few cost efficiencies that come from the merger of functionsindeed, there may be none at all. It is possible that combining so much in a single bank makes services more expensive than if they were instead offered by smaller, specialised players.

The second grave error, Reed said, was trying to mix the two conflicting cultures in bankingbankers who are pulling in opposite directions. That tension helps explain the competitive greed displayed by the modernized banking system. This disorder speaks to the current political crisis in ways that neither Dems nor Republicans wish to confront. It would require the politicians to critique the bankers (often their funders) in terms of human failure.

Mixing incompatible cultures is a problem all by itself, Reed wrote. It makes the entire finance industry more fragile. As is now clear, traditional banking attracts one kind of talent, which is entirely different from the kinds drawn towards investment banking and trading. Traditional bankers tend to be extroverts, sociable people who are focused on longer term relationships. They are, in many important respects, risk averse. Investment bankers and their traders are more short termist. They are comfortable with, and many even seek out, risk and are more focused on immediate reward.

Reed concludes, As I have reflected about the years since 1999, I think the lessons of Glass-Steagall and its repeal suggest that the universal banking model is inherently unstable and unworkable. No amount of restructuring, management change or regulation is ever likely to change that.

This might sound hopelessly naive, but the Democratic Party might do better in politics if it told more of the truth more often: what they tried do and why it failed, and what they think they may have gotten wrong. People already know they havent gotten a straight story from politicians. They might be favorably impressed by a little more candor in the plain-spoken manner of John Reed.

Of course its unfair to pick on the Dems. Republicans have been lying about their big stuff for so long and so relentlessly that their voters are now staging a wrathful rebellion. Who knows, maybe a little honest talk might lead to honest debate. Think about it. Do the people want to hear the truth about our national condition? Could they stand it?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Yes, I consider it to be far-fetched. Especially the parts about considering running foreign policy to be a "side job" and keeping campaign secrets from Obama. In fact, I consider those to be beyond far-fetched and an absurd lie which should call into question the credibility of everything about that article.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Yes, I consider it to be far-fetched. Especially the parts about considering running foreign policy to be a "side job" and keeping campaign secrets from Obama. In fact, I consider those to be beyond far-fetched and an absurd lie which should call into question the credibility of everything about that article.

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

timschochet said:

Yes, I consider it to be far-fetched. Especially the parts about considering running foreign policy to be a "side job" and keeping campaign secrets from Obama. In fact, I consider those to be beyond far-fetched and an absurd lie which should call into question the credibility of everything about that article.

Click to expand...

It sounds like Hillary to me. One comparison with Trump I see is the final merger in American politics of the political, financial and personal all tied into one, unblurred, with no lines drawn.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Yes, I consider it to be far-fetched. Especially the parts about considering running foreign policy to be a "side job" and keeping campaign secrets from Obama. In fact, I consider those to be beyond far-fetched and an absurd lie which should call into question the credibility of everything about that article.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

timschochet said:

Yes, I consider it to be far-fetched. Especially the parts about considering running foreign policy to be a "side job" and keeping campaign secrets from Obama. In fact, I consider those to be beyond far-fetched and an absurd lie which should call into question the credibility of everything about that article.

Click to expand...

It sounds like Hillary to me. One comparison with Trump I see is the final merger in American politics of the political, financial and personal all tied into one, unblurred, with no lines drawn.

Click to expand...

As I've mentioned before, if it sounds like Hillary to you, that's because your view of Hillary is IMO a caricature with no real bearing on the real person.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

timschochet said:

Yes, I consider it to be far-fetched. Especially the parts about considering running foreign policy to be a "side job" and keeping campaign secrets from Obama. In fact, I consider those to be beyond far-fetched and an absurd lie which should call into question the credibility of everything about that article.

Click to expand...

It sounds like Hillary to me. One comparison with Trump I see is the final merger in American politics of the political, financial and personal all tied into one, unblurred, with no lines drawn.

Click to expand...

As I've mentioned before, if it sounds like Hillary to you, that's because your view of Hillary is IMO a caricature with no real bearing on the real person.

Click to expand...

State Department can't find emails of top Clinton IT stafferThe FBI has taken possession of Bryan Pagliano's computer system.


The State Department has told Senate investigators it cannot find backup copies of emails sent by Bryan Pagliano, the top Hillary Clinton IT staffer who maintained her email server but has asserted his Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer questions on the matter.State officials told the Senate Judiciary Committee in a recent closed-door meeting that they could not locate what’s known as a “.pst file” for Pagliano’s work during Clinton’s tenure, which would have included copies of the tech expert’s emails, according to a letter Chairman Chuck Grassley sent to Secretary of State John Kerry that was obtained by POLITICO.


The department also told the committee the FBI has taken possession of Pagliano’s government computer system, where traces of the messages are most likely to be found, according to the letter.

Grassley, an Iowa Republican, has been considering whether to grant Pagliano immunity in exchange for testimony on who approved Clinton's private email setup and whether anyone raised any objections to the system. The controversy over her decision to bypass a government email address, which would have made her messages easier for reporters and the public to obtain, has dogged the presidential hopeful for much of the year, though it has subsided in recent weeks.

Pagliano — who worked for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, then followed her to the State Department — has refused to discuss Clinton's email arrangement or his role in it, invoking his right against self-incrimination before the House Benghazi Committee earlier this fall.

Clinton had personally paid Pagliano to maintain her home-made server, which is also currently in the FBI’s possession. The agency has been investigating whether classified material was ever put at risk because she used her own server instead of the standard State email system. The State Department has designated about 1,000 of her emails as classified documents, which would never have been allowed on such a private system. Clinton’s representatives maintain that the emails were not classified at the time they were sent.

Pagliano’s lawyer could not be reached for comment.

Grassley had requested Pagliano’s emails to help inform his decision whether to grant Pagliano immunity.

“Given that the committee is unable to obtain [Pagliano’s] testimony at this time, I am seeking copies of his official State Department emails relevant to the Committee’s inquiry before proceeding to consider whether it might be appropriate to grant him immunity and compel his testimony,” Grassley's letter states. It notes that such emails are a “top priority” in a list of several outstanding Clinton-related inquiries the panel has sent to the department.

The State Department said that while it has located a backup for emails Pagliano sent after Clinton left State, officials cannot find the file for the backup covering work he did while she was still there.

“The Department has located a .pst from Mr. Pagliano’s recent work at the Department as a contractor, but the files are from after Secretary Clinton left the State Department. We have not yet located a .pst that covers the time period of Secretary Clinton’s tenure,” said Alec Gerlach, a State Department spokesman. “We are continuing to search for Mr. Pagliano’s emails which the Department may have otherwise retained. We will, of course, share emails responsive to Senator Grassley’s requests if we locate them.”

State, like many federal agencies, did not have a systematic email archiving system for years. When the server issue first arose in the spring, State acknowledged that it did not automatically archive the email traffic of senior employees — relying on them to make their own backups, or “.pst,” if needed. Under current rules, federal employees are responsible for ensuring their official emails are saved.

State has not asked Pagliano whether he has any official emails in his possession, as it has with other top Clinton staffers who used personal email for work. It is unclear if Pagliano’s Fifth Amendment rights would protect him from turning over such messages.

Grassley encouraged State to continue searching for Pagliano’s emails by looking at the back-up email files of other State employees he may have emailed about the Clinton server. The letter seeks “a full and detailed written explanation of why it failed to maintain an archive, copy, or backup of Mr. Pagliano’s email file,” among other requests related to the IT staffer's emails.

...

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

timschochet said:

Yes, I consider it to be far-fetched. Especially the parts about considering running foreign policy to be a "side job" and keeping campaign secrets from Obama. In fact, I consider those to be beyond far-fetched and an absurd lie which should call into question the credibility of everything about that article.

Click to expand...

It sounds like Hillary to me. One comparison with Trump I see is the final merger in American politics of the political, financial and personal all tied into one, unblurred, with no lines drawn.

Click to expand...

As I've mentioned before, if it sounds like Hillary to you, that's because your view of Hillary is IMO a caricature with no real bearing on the real person.

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

State Department can't find emails of top Clinton IT stafferThe FBI has taken possession of Bryan Pagliano's computer system.


The State Department has told Senate investigators it cannot find backup copies of emails sent by Bryan Pagliano, the top Hillary Clinton IT staffer who maintained her email server but has asserted his Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer questions on the matter.State officials told the Senate Judiciary Committee in a recent closed-door meeting that they could not locate what’s known as a “.pst file” for Pagliano’s work during Clinton’s tenure, which would have included copies of the tech expert’s emails, according to a letter Chairman Chuck Grassley sent to Secretary of State John Kerry that was obtained by POLITICO.

Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/hillary-clinton-bryan-pagliano-emails-state-department-216679#ixzz3uDqGTMws

Click to expand...

Sand said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

State Department can't find emails of top Clinton IT stafferThe FBI has taken possession of Bryan Pagliano's computer system.


The State Department has told Senate investigators it cannot find backup copies of emails sent by Bryan Pagliano, the top Hillary Clinton IT staffer who maintained her email server but has asserted his Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer questions on the matter.State officials told the Senate Judiciary Committee in a recent closed-door meeting that they could not locate what’s known as a “.pst file” for Pagliano’s work during Clinton’s tenure, which would have included copies of the tech expert’s emails, according to a letter Chairman Chuck Grassley sent to Secretary of State John Kerry that was obtained by POLITICO.

Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/hillary-clinton-bryan-pagliano-emails-state-department-216679#ixzz3uDqGTMws

Click to expand...

Maybe the funniest part of this is that the reporter, obviously not having a clue that this is an outlook file, has to refer to it as a ".pst file" instead of just taking 2 seconds and looking it up.

Click to expand...

Sand said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

State Department can't find emails of top Clinton IT staffer

The FBI has taken possession of Bryan Pagliano's computer system.



The State Department has told Senate investigators it cannot find backup copies of emails sent by Bryan Pagliano, the top Hillary Clinton IT staffer who maintained her email server but has asserted his Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer questions on the matter.

State officials told the Senate Judiciary Committee in a recent closed-door meeting that they could not locate whats known as a .pst file for Paglianos work during Clintons tenure, which would have included copies of the tech experts emails, according to a letter Chairman Chuck Grassley sent to Secretary of State John Kerry that was obtained by POLITICO.

Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/hillary-clinton-bryan-pagliano-emails-state-department-216679#ixzz3uDqGTMws

Click to expand...

Maybe the funniest part of this is that the reporter, obviously not having a clue that this is an outlook file, has to refer to it as a ".pst file" instead of just taking 2 seconds and looking it up.

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

I think the funniest part of this is the FBI is seizing Pagliano's computer and data. The investigation not only continues it continues to expand.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Sand said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

State Department can't find emails of top Clinton IT staffer

The FBI has taken possession of Bryan Pagliano's computer system.



The State Department has told Senate investigators it cannot find backup copies of emails sent by Bryan Pagliano, the top Hillary Clinton IT staffer who maintained her email server but has asserted his Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer questions on the matter.

State officials told the Senate Judiciary Committee in a recent closed-door meeting that they could not locate whats known as a .pst file for Paglianos work during Clintons tenure, which would have included copies of the tech experts emails, according to a letter Chairman Chuck Grassley sent to Secretary of State John Kerry that was obtained by POLITICO.

Click to expand...

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/hillary-clinton-bryan-pagliano-emails-state-department-216679#ixzz3uDqGTMws

Click to expand...

Maybe the funniest part of this is that the reporter, obviously not having a clue that this is an outlook file, has to refer to it as a ".pst file" instead of just taking 2 seconds and looking it up.

Click to expand...

Sand are you in the chess tourney? Starts Monday.

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Pagliano is also represented by lobbyist mega law firm Akin Gump which is one of Hilllarys biggest contributors.

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

That's a negating statement, Tim, the fact that you can't think of a good reason why the Feds would seize Pagliano's data says more than the comment you just made.

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

I think the funniest part of this is the FBI is seizing Pagliano's computer and data. The investigation not only continues it continues to expand.

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Well we know the Feds have gone after all conceivable data points - they seized State servers, Pagliano's computer(s), and the nodes, backups and servers from the vendors in CO and CT. Something's up, but what?

Click to expand...

Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton 'killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity'

Donald Trump claimed Sunday that Hillary Clinton "killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity" with her decisions as secretary of state, seemingly shocking his interviewer.

In a "Fox News Sunday" interview, Trump said Clinton and President Barack Obama's foreign-policy decisions in Africa and the Middle East resulted in the deaths of "hundreds of thousands" of people.

"She is the one that caused all this problem with her stupid policies. You look at what she did with Libya, what she did with Syria. Look at Egypt, what happened with Egypt, a total mess."

"She was truly — if not the — one of the worst secretaries of state in the history of the country," he added. "She talks about me being dangerous. She's killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity."

Wallace pushed Trump to clarify what he meant.

"The Middle East is a total disaster under her," Trump said.

Trump was responding to an interview this week in which Clinton said Trump's plan to temporarily ban most Muslims from traveling to the US was dangerous.

"He has gone way over the line. And what he’s saying now is not only shameful and wrong — it’s dangerous,” Clinton said.

The former secretary of state said Trump's proposal "plays right into the hands of terrorists" by alienating Muslims in Western countries and framing terrorism as a clash between Islam and the West.

“I don’t say that lightly, but it does. He is giving them a great propaganda tool, a way to recruit more folks from Europe and the United States," Clinton said. "And because it’s kind of crossed that line, I think everybody and especially other Republicans need to stand up and say, ‘Enough. You've gone too far.'"

Click to expand...

Sand said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Pagliano is also represented by lobbyist mega law firm Akin Gump which is one of Hilllarys biggest contributors.

Click to expand...

How does an IT guy afford $750/hr lawyers?

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Slapdash said:

Hillary Clinton Is Whitewashing the Financial Catastrophe

She has a plan that she claims will reform Wall Streetbut shes deflecting responsibility from old friends and donors in the industry.

By William Greider

Hillary Clintons recent op-ed in The New York Times, How Id Rein In Wall Street, was intended to reassure nervous Democrats who fear she is still in thrall to those mega-bankers of New York who crashed the American economy. Clintons brisk recital of plausible reform ideas might convince wishful thinkers who are not familiar with the complexities of banking. But informed skeptics, myself included, see a disturbing message in her argument that ought to alarm innocent supporters.

Candidate Clinton is essentially whitewashing the financial catastrophe. She has produced a clumsy rewrite of what caused the 2008 collapse, one that conveniently leaves her husband out of the story. He was the president who legislated the predicate for Wall Streets meltdown. Hillary Clintons redefinition of the reform problem deflects the blame from Wall Streets most powerful institutions, like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, and instead fingers less celebrated players that failed. In roundabout fashion, Hillary Clinton sounds like she is assuring old friends and donors in the financial sector that, if she becomes president, she will not come after them.

The seminal event that sowed financial disaster was the repeal of the New Deals Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which had separated banking into different realms: investment banks, which organize capital investors for risk-taking ventures; and deposit-holding banks, which serve people as borrowers and lenders. That laws repeal, a great victory for Wall Street, was delivered by Bill Clinton in 1999, assisted by the Federal Reserve and the financial sectors armies of lobbyists. The universal banking model was saluted as a modernizing reform that liberated traditional banks to participate directly and indirectly in long-prohibited and vastly more profitable risk-taking.

Exotic financial instruments like derivatives and credit-default swaps flourished, enabling old-line bankers to share in the fun and profit on an awesome scale. The banks invented guarantees against loss and sold them to both companies and market players. The fast-expanding financial sector claimed a larger and larger share of the economy (and still does) at the expense of the real economy of producers and consumers. The interconnectedness across market sectors created the illusion of safety. When illusions failed, these connected guarantees became the dragnet that drove panic in every direction. Ultimately, the federal government had to rescue everyone, foreign and domestic, to stop the bleeding.

Yet Hillary Clinton asserts in her Times op-ed that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it. She claims that Glass-Steagall would not have limited the reckless behavior of institutions like Lehman Brothers or insurance giant AIG, which were not traditional banks. Her argument amounts to facile evasion that ignores the interconnected exposures. The Federal Reserve spent $180 billion bailing out AIG so AIG could pay back Goldman Sachs and other banks. If the Fed hadnt acted and had allowed AIG to fail, the banks would have gone down too.

These sound like esoteric questions of bank regulation (and they are), but the consequences of pretending they do not matter are enormous. The federal government and Federal Reserve would remain on the hook for rescuing losers in a future crisis. The largest and most adventurous banks would remain free to experiment, inventing fictitious guarantees and selling them to eager suckers. If things go wrong, Uncle Sam cleans up the mess.

Senator Elizabeth Warren and other reformers are pushing a simpler remedyrestore the Glass-Steagall principles and give citizens a safe, government-insured place to store their money. Banking should be boring, Warren explains (her co-sponsor is GOP Senator John McCain).

Thats a hard sell in politics, given the banking sectors bear hug of Congress and the White House, its callous manipulation of both political parties. Of course, it is more complicated than that. But recreating a safe, stable banking systema place where ordinary people can keep their moneyought to be the first benchmark for Democrats who claim to be reformers.

Actually, the most compelling witnesses for Senator Warrens argument are the two bankers who introduced this adventure in universal banking back in the 1990s. They used their political savvy and relentless muscle to seduce Bill Clinton and his so-called New Democrats. John Reed was CEO of Citicorp and led the charge. He has since apologized to the nation. Sandy Weill was chairman of the board and a brilliant financier who envisioned the possibilities of a single, all-purpose financial house, freed of governments narrow-minded regulations. They won politically, but at staggering cost to the country.

Weill confessed error back in 2012: What we should probably do is go and split up investment banking from banking. Have banks do something thats not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, thats not going to be too big to fail.

John Reeds confession explained explicitly why their modernizing crusade failed for two fundamental business reasons. One was the belief that combining all types of finance into one institution would drive costs downand the larger institution the more efficient it would be, Reed wrote in the Financial Times in November. Reed said, We now know that there are very few cost efficiencies that come from the merger of functionsindeed, there may be none at all. It is possible that combining so much in a single bank makes services more expensive than if they were instead offered by smaller, specialised players.

The second grave error, Reed said, was trying to mix the two conflicting cultures in bankingbankers who are pulling in opposite directions. That tension helps explain the competitive greed displayed by the modernized banking system. This disorder speaks to the current political crisis in ways that neither Dems nor Republicans wish to confront. It would require the politicians to critique the bankers (often their funders) in terms of human failure.

Mixing incompatible cultures is a problem all by itself, Reed wrote. It makes the entire finance industry more fragile. As is now clear, traditional banking attracts one kind of talent, which is entirely different from the kinds drawn towards investment banking and trading. Traditional bankers tend to be extroverts, sociable people who are focused on longer term relationships. They are, in many important respects, risk averse. Investment bankers and their traders are more short termist. They are comfortable with, and many even seek out, risk and are more focused on immediate reward.

Reed concludes, As I have reflected about the years since 1999, I think the lessons of Glass-Steagall and its repeal suggest that the universal banking model is inherently unstable and unworkable. No amount of restructuring, management change or regulation is ever likely to change that.

This might sound hopelessly naive, but the Democratic Party might do better in politics if it told more of the truth more often: what they tried do and why it failed, and what they think they may have gotten wrong. People already know they havent gotten a straight story from politicians. They might be favorably impressed by a little more candor in the plain-spoken manner of John Reed.

Of course its unfair to pick on the Dems. Republicans have been lying about their big stuff for so long and so relentlessly that their voters are now staging a wrathful rebellion. Who knows, maybe a little honest talk might lead to honest debate. Think about it. Do the people want to hear the truth about our national condition? Could they stand it?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

For decades now William Greider has been pushing a leftist agenda that makes Bernie Sanders look like Ronald Reagan. That he should condemn Hillary should surprise no one.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

I haven't ignored the meat of this issue once. There is nothing mysterious or sneaky about Hillary's position. She believes that some amount of increased regulation is necessary, but she is not willing to go so far as bringing back every provision of Glass-Steagal. To a hardline socialist like Greider, that proves that she's in the pay of the "big banks". To moderates and rational thinkers, it proves that she wants to curtail corruption without impairing growth if she can. Once again, Hillary is espousing the thoughtful, centrist position. Sorry if it doesn't please your ideology.

Click to expand...

Slapdash said:

timschochet said:

I haven't ignored the meat of this issue once. There is nothing mysterious or sneaky about Hillary's position. She believes that some amount of increased regulation is necessary, but she is not willing to go so far as bringing back every provision of Glass-Steagal. To a hardline socialist like Greider, that proves that she's in the pay of the "big banks". To moderates and rational thinkers, it proves that she wants to curtail corruption without impairing growth if she can. Once again, Hillary is espousing the thoughtful, centrist position. Sorry if it doesn't please your ideology.

Click to expand...

What specific regulations is she proposing?

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Slapdash said:

timschochet said:

I haven't ignored the meat of this issue once. There is nothing mysterious or sneaky about Hillary's position. She believes that some amount of increased regulation is necessary, but she is not willing to go so far as bringing back every provision of Glass-Steagal. To a hardline socialist like Greider, that proves that she's in the pay of the "big banks". To moderates and rational thinkers, it proves that she wants to curtail corruption without impairing growth if she can. Once again, Hillary is espousing the thoughtful, centrist position. Sorry if it doesn't please your ideology.

Click to expand...

What specific regulations is she proposing?

Click to expand...

Later. The Steelers are playing.

Click to expand...

Slapdash said:

timschochet said:

Slapdash said:

timschochet said:

I haven't ignored the meat of this issue once. There is nothing mysterious or sneaky about Hillary's position. She believes that some amount of increased regulation is necessary, but she is not willing to go so far as bringing back every provision of Glass-Steagal. To a hardline socialist like Greider, that proves that she's in the pay of the "big banks". To moderates and rational thinkers, it proves that she wants to curtail corruption without impairing growth if she can. Once again, Hillary is espousing the thoughtful, centrist position. Sorry if it doesn't please your ideology.

Click to expand...

What specific regulations is she proposing?

Click to expand...

Later. The Steelers are playing.

Click to expand...

Typical

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Slapdash said:

timschochet said:

Slapdash said:

timschochet said:

I haven't ignored the meat of this issue once. There is nothing mysterious or sneaky about Hillary's position. She believes that some amount of increased regulation is necessary, but she is not willing to go so far as bringing back every provision of Glass-Steagal. To a hardline socialist like Greider, that proves that she's in the pay of the "big banks". To moderates and rational thinkers, it proves that she wants to curtail corruption without impairing growth if she can. Once again, Hillary is espousing the thoughtful, centrist position. Sorry if it doesn't please your ideology.

Click to expand...

What specific regulations is she proposing?

Click to expand...

Later. The Steelers are playing.

Click to expand...

Typical

Click to expand...

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/10/08/wall-street-work-for-main-street/

Read it for yourself, thanks.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

SaintsInDome2006 said:

timschochet said:

Yes, I consider it to be far-fetched. Especially the parts about considering running foreign policy to be a "side job" and keeping campaign secrets from Obama. In fact, I consider those to be beyond far-fetched and an absurd lie which should call into question the credibility of everything about that article.

Click to expand...

It sounds like Hillary to me. One comparison with Trump I see is the final merger in American politics of the political, financial and personal all tied into one, unblurred, with no lines drawn.

Click to expand...

As I've mentioned before, if it sounds like Hillary to you, that's because your view of Hillary is IMO a caricature with no real bearing on the real person.

Click to expand...

SaintsInDome2006 said:

Tim you post to The Briefing and just a couple days ago you said you never do that. You have got to be kidding. What a joke.

Click to expand...