Home 2016 elections Wednesday News: No Charges in Ridiculous Email Non-“Scandal;” Trump Praises Saddam Hussein;...

Wednesday News: No Charges in Ridiculous Email Non-“Scandal;” Trump Praises Saddam Hussein; Obama Rallies for Hillary

1229
24
SHARE


by Lowell

Here are a few national and Virginia news headlines, political and otherwise, for Wednesday, July 6. Also check out President Obama speaking yesterday for Hillary Clinton in North Carolina.

  • This pretty much sums it up: “Donald Trump’s praise for brutal strongmen seemingly knows no bounds”

    Tuesday, HFA Senior Policy Adviser Jake Sullivan released the following statement in response to Donald Trump’s praise for Saddam Hussein:

    “Donald Trump’s praise for brutal strongmen seemingly knows no bounds. He has applauded the strength China showed in the Tiananmen Square massacre, offered admiration for Kim Jong Un’s murderous consolidation of power in North Korea, and consistently lavished praise on Vladimir Putin. Tonight, Trump yet again lauded Saddam Hussein as a great killer of terrorists, noting with approval that he never bothered to read anyone their rights. In reality, Hussein’s regime was a sponsor of terrorism – one that paid families of suicide bombers who attacked Israelis, among other crimes. Trump’s cavalier compliments for brutal dictators, and the twisted lessons he seems to have learned from their history, again demonstrate how dangerous he would be as Commander-in-Chief and how unworthy he is of the office he seeks.”

    • Jim B

      There are a number of republicans in all of our agencies who like nothing better than to leak any info that makes democrats look bad. For example would Clinton actually send information that was deemed top secret or was that info classified later? Although Clinton bears ultimate responsibility how much time do you suppose Clinton was using a computer? I just don’t see her as someone sitting around using a computer. Leaders lead. If you have a boss that is wedded to their computer they are not doing their job.

    • True Blue
      • That’s absolutely unacceptable.

  • Shocker: The Washington (Com)Post yet again hyperventilating over a b.s. non-“scandal” involving the Clintons. Three of the top comments on the (Com)Post’s main article sum it up:

    “The average voter simply does not and will not care. Hillary loses the Fox crowd — again. Everyone else has the choice between a rational person who did something dumb with her email server, and a nut job.”

    “On a scale of 1/100 with 100 being the most serious, I rate this email so called scandal a 1. Hillary was tired of being hounded by the right wing and tried to protect herself against them. Unfortunately this led to her setting up the email system in her house. Shouldn’t have done it but a major scandal…NOT.”

    “Most lawyers (including me) have known for some time that this would happen, because there wasn’t enough evidence to prove a crime was committed. In fact, the GOP is notorious for its bogus investigations of Clinton – they are real pros at investigating with no results. However, their only real goal is to smear her.”

    • Quizzical

      It seems to me that the right wing cries crocodile tears over the mishandling of information that Hillary Clinton “or her staff” knew “or should have known” was highly classified — yet at the same time, due to their efforts there is now a Wikileaks database of over 31000 of her emails as SOS, with more to be added no doubt, as soon as Congress can get them from the FBI and leak them.

      Considering that she is very likely to be the next President of the United States, how is this consistent with our national interests?

  • Quizzical

    To some extent, Hillary Clinton is being judged in 2016 for IT security decisions made in 2009. That’s a long, long time in the world of computer security.

    But I’m just curious about what people think the standard is today, in 2016? For instance, in your office, so you routinely send encrypted mail? Do you encrypt your data storage at work, when it is “at rest?” Anybody still using Windows XP?

    • Good questions. All I know is that the Washington (Com)Post is on a crusade against Hillary Clinton, while Donald Trump tweets out anti-Semitic images, advocates for torture, denies climate science, praises world dictators, encourages violence, makes racist/bigoted comments, is a corrupt scumbag, is utterly unqualified in every way to be president, etc, etc.

      • Quizzical

        I tend to suspect that the newspapers and cable tv stations want a horse race in political campaigns to motivate the two candidates and parties to spend, spend, spend on advertising, and of course, to sell newspapers, and get views of ads on websites. So they knock down Hillary Clinton if she starts to pull away from Trump. They’d knock down Trump if he started to get ahead too much. Not a crusade, just business. It’s going to be neck and neck in October, I guarantee it.

        I get all my tv these days through AppleTV. Just yesterday, I clicked on CBS News for the latest stories on the campaign, and I found myself watching a full streaming broadcast of a Donald Trump speech. And that’s not the first time that has happened. That has never happened to me with a Hillary Clinton speech. Trump has gotten so much free air time it is ridiculous.

        Getting back to computer security though, I’d say that the entire United States Government has been “extremely careless” about computer security ever since the world wide web was invented.

        How many more stories do we need to read to know that? OPM and the IRS have been hacked. The CIA hacked into Senators’ computers to erase stuff. There have been all sorts of stories about loss of classified information concerning defense systems. It’s no coincidence that Russia and China are flying planes that are remarkably similar to F-16’s.

        Let’s not forget Edward Snowden and what he did to the NSA, or what Bradley (Chelsey) Manning did to the DOD and State Department.

        Behind every one of the above breaches, there were all kinds of people who were “extremely careless”, if not grossly negligent.

        When is a team of crack FBI investigators going to review all of Powell’s and Rice’s private emails, and the servers those emails were on, to see if Powell or Rice inadvertently referred to information that they knew or should have known was classified, or if there are signs of intrusion by hostile actors?

        I doubt that any of the highest officials in State or the DOD over the past couple of Administrations could come through such scrutiny without at least a handful of extremely careless mistakes.

  • Uh oh, watch out Trump: Mike Pence not anti-LGBT enough for Ewwww Jackson! LOL

    https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7393/28023722702_c7a196568b_o.jpg

  • Andy Schmookler

    About the Hillary/email matter. I would really like to believe that the bottom line is that Hillary has been exonerated, and the whole brouhaha over this has been proved to be as groundless and dishonest and politically motivated on the right as the whole Benghazi matter.

    But there are too many people who are not just right-wing hacks and propagandists who are calling it differently.

    True, the elements that would make her conduct a crime are missing: no intent to leak classified material, no deliberately working to damage the United States.

    But Comey’s non-criminal indictments are not nothing. And I have been struck by other fairly strong statements from people like Ryan Grim, whom I have perceived as a liberal-oriented journalist (last night on Chris Hayes’ show). And as just one other example, this from the McClatchy newspapers: ” “Clinton’s handling of email went beyond carelessness, experts say.”

    Plenty more.

    So I hope that it’s true that voters won’t care about this. And it surely is true that Hillary’s shortcomings, however they are assessed, are a molehill compared to those of Donald Trump.

    But is it really correct to imply that Hillary’s come out of this with an essentially clean bill of health? Has this business really now been shown to be a non-scandal?

    I am firmly and fiercely now in Hillary’s camp. But I don’t want my support of her to distort my perception here.

    So I ask: how would what has now been shown and said about this email biz affect the views of a wise and impartial citizen about Hillary?

    What does all this reveal about her that should matter to us as we as a nation decide to make her the next president?

    • Repeating the three top-rated comments I posted below:

      “The average voter simply does not and will not care. Hillary loses the Fox crowd — again. Everyone else has the choice between a rational person who did something dumb with her email server, and a nut job.”

      “On a scale of 1/100 with 100 being the most serious, I rate this email so called scandal a 1. Hillary was tired of being hounded by the right wing and tried to protect herself against them. Unfortunately this led to her setting up the email system in her house. Shouldn’t have done it but a major scandal…NOT.”

      “Most lawyers (including me) have known for some time that this would happen, because there wasn’t enough evidence to prove a crime was committed. In fact, the GOP is notorious for its bogus investigations of Clinton – they are real pros at investigating with no results. However, their only real goal is to smear her.”

      • Andy Schmookler

        Yes. I read those before I wrote my comment. And I’d be delighted for all that to be true.

        There is a reality out there that is well-established and ought not to be ignored: that polls show Hillary to have high unfavorables, and that central to that appears to be that a lot of Americans (approximately 60%) do not see her as honest and trustworthy.

        Regardless of how well- or ill-founded those perceptions are, and regardless of what role right-wing propaganda vs. her own actions caused this distrust, these perceptions exist. And they are potentially important EVEN IF SHE WINS THE ELECTION HANDILY, which at present seems highly likely. They will remain important because they can affect her ability to lead the nation, which is an important part of the job of the president.

        So I would like to raise a question that I myself have been pondering for a couple of months now: if you were advising Hillary, and you believed that it was important to move people toward trusting her, WHAT WOULD YOU ADVISE HER TO DO?

        Or would you regard this widespread perception as either unimportant or irremediable?

        • I’d advise her to move on with her campaign, kick Trump’s fascistic ass, and don’t worry so much about people who love tearing her down.

          • Andy Schmookler

            When something like 60% of the public — even, apparently, a goodly share of people who are planning to vote for her — do not regard her as “trustworthy,” this is not about worrying “about people who love tearing her down.” This is about the value, for a president, of being trusted by a majority of the people. It’s not about her enemies who, I agree, one should not seek to win over. It’s about gaining a more widespread public trust.

            As I said, the credibility of a president matters in terms of being able to rally people behind an agenda, and put pressure on those who stand in the way.

          • So what do you suggest?

          • Andy Schmookler

            As I said, I’ve been pondering this for months. I may be on the trail of something, but not yet ready to articulate it publicly.

            For now, let me just report this much: 1) I think she should leave this issue altogether alone between now and Election Day– unless the polls show her to be in trouble, which I’m not thinking is likely; then 2) In the interval between her (presumed) victory over Trump and her inauguration as president, there could be a speech she gives in which this issue is addressed.

            I hope to be able to write such a speech, but I don’t have a good enough handle on it now. But I think that the theme might be some kind of heartfelt statement about what it is about her that Americans CAN TRULY TRUST, that matters in a president.

            BTW, I assuming that — at the most fundamental level, for a president — she is someone that we Americans SHOULD trust.

          • Right, I agree on #1. As for #2, I’d say that she should work as president to revamp the way we classify information (right now it’s highly dysfunctional), as well as how we communicate in the age of the smart phone, internet, cyberhackers, etc, etc.

  • Slimy C(orey Lewandoski)NN uses mugshot of Alton Sterling.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N19E6g9sKto

  • Video: President Obama Delivers a Statement on Afghanistan

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJKuoQJgjsE

  • Video: Hillary Clinton rips Trump’s slimy record in Atlantic City. She also takes a shot at the pathetic Chris Christie: “If your governor would start doing his job instead of following Donald Trump around, holding his coat, maybe we could really get New Jersey’s economy going again”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjwOjgusZEs