The DNC was always going to be pro HRC, it was the smart safe route, and like it or not, they are a Private organization, they can really do what ever they please in the organization, within the law of course
Interesting op-ed in the NYT about Trump, written by Aziz Ansari. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/o...-for-my-family.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
After we've voted for the brexit? No way would I ban Trump from the UK. We need all the help we can get IMO.
Loving the reactions to this tweet from Trump: "Just arrived in Scotland. Place is going wild over the vote. They took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!" I can't repeat most of my favourites, due to the swear filter, but I did like this one: "Scotland voted to stay, you half-melted, oversized Claymation figurine". :]]
Yes, interesting. But writers of such articles tend to spoil them, in my view, by trying to mislead the reader though 'censoring' the facts. For example, he said that on the day of the Orlando shootings, Mr. Trump, in response to the attack in Orlando, began a tweet with these words: “Appreciate the congrats.” It appears that day he was the one who was celebrating after an attack. When I read that I wondered why he only quoted the beginning of the tweet. So I looked at the full tweet. It was in response to him receiving tweets that "congratulated" him on predicting terrorism. It said. "Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don't want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!" That doesn't sound like he was celebrating the Orlando attack, at all. Does it! When writers of articles blatantly twist or censor what really happened it throws doubt on other things they say in the article. He said he was called "terrorist" as he crossed the road. Did that really happen? Possibly, but he has been dishonest elsewhere, why should we trust his honesty here?
He was basking in the "glory" of his "being right". He has been roundly and quite rightly criticised for that tweet. Furthermore, Aziz said "celebrating after an attack" not "celebrating the attack", so you're moving the goalposts. Trump's attitude post Orlando was almost exclusively "look at me, I'm right, told you so". There's no "blatant twisting". Everyone else was expressing shock and sympathy to the victims and their families. Trump crows about how he told everyone so. It was utterly crass.
no, you're wrong. He is a very humble man. He was just expressing thanks as polite people do. Very funny in the Guardian this morning - he was in Scotland for his golf club and the reporter asked him why no serious politicians wanted to meet him - his response was 'you're a nasty, nasty, man". Reminds me of Dennis Pennis asking Steve Martin why he wasn't funny anymore.
You pick me up (correctly, my apologies) on changing ONE word as it "moves the goalposts". Then you say that printing only 3 words out of 23 in a tweet is fair enough. Laughable Arakel. I dont like the bloke (Trump), and he deserves most of the flack he gets. But the writer twisted his words.
You mean the tweet he clearly DIRECTLY LINKED TO in the article, after he clearly wrote "began a tweet" in relation to a wider point (the third word of which was hyperlinked), and referenced a tweet which actually was celebrating his own "correctness" in the wake of a disaster? That constitutes "twisting words"? Or are you going to tell us that someone starting a tweet "appreciate the congrats" is not, in fact, celebrating their own achievements?
Yes, that is the one. The one that he could easily have just shown in full saving the hassle getting it on the internet themselves. He was relying on the fact that most people wouldn't bother. He was twisting teh meaning. I don't get your last sentence as it stands. If Deeney scores a goal in an important match. He then receives tweets congratulating him on his goal and he replies... "Appreciate the congrats, but we cant get complacent, we still need 4 more points." Does that mean he is celebrating his own brilliance?
Except he isn't, because Trump WAS crowing about his own brilliance over the bodies of 50 people. He didn't say Trump was celebrating the death of 50 people, he said he was celebrating after a tragic event instead of commiserating. If "told you so" isn't a celebration of one's own self then I don't know what is. And bear in mind that the FBI has since confirmed the shooter was not acting for IS, was not especially religious and was a natural born citizen, which makes Trump's comments all the more crass. Is Deeney loudly proclaiming "told you so" in that example directly after a tragedy that saw 50 people mowed down by an AR15? Context is key. Trump was clearly slapping his own back. In your example, Deeney is not. They're not remotely comparable. The overall point Aziz was making was simple: in the wake of a massacre, Trump's instinct was to glorify in his own perceived rightness rather than empathising with the families of those killed. It was disgusting behavior.
I think it is even more worrying that you think it was a fair way to describe the tweet. I shall bear it in mind when you next relay some info to us in your own words. Nite.
So Hillary Clinton was 'interviewed' by the FBI this morning. It's a federal offence to lie to the FBI as Martha Stewart found out to her cost, so should be interesting. Also a storm blew up when US Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a secret meeting with Bill Clinton which the press found out about.
Quite an amusing statement from the FB....aaaaaye, since they basically said "she broke the law but we're not going to recommend going any further". The reaction in the US has been predictable thus far.
Effectively they are saying it's more of a discipline at work issue. The notion of a 'reasonable' prosecutor has a specific meaning in law. It means that no reasonable prosecutor would attempt to prosecute this. A bit like how we are all technically breaking the law of England by not practising our Archery this weekend. It means you would need to be 'unreasonable' or in other words a Republican.
It's not remotely the same as not practicing archery, though. This isn't an area of archaic dead law. The law governing US classified info is both modern and actively enforced; in fact, there have already been many examples cited in the US media of non-high profile people getting prosecuted for doing far less than the FBI says she has done. I have a number of friends in the US military with various levels of security clearance, and they've all told me without a shadow of a doubt they'd be in prison if they'd done what Clinton has. Not a single one of them has any doubt about that, and before you ask, no they're not all Republicans. This is clearly a policy decision, not a legal one. The concern appears to be on the downstream implications. I wouldn't attempt to tie this to Republicans, either. While the Republicans are naturally going to work themselves into a lather over this, there are droves of traditional Democrat and independent voters who aren't at all happy about this announcement. Having said that, you can certainly blame the Republicans for crying wolf one too many times with their ridiculous Benghazi agenda, which is fair and deserved criticism. I should add that I have a very, very high level of expertise with e-mail systems. I understand far more than the average person about the implications of the FBI's findings from a technical standpoint. Given the security setup Clinton apparently had, I find the idea that you can't find someone grossly negligent in terms of handling of classified information in the way she did as beggaring belief. The moment that first classified mail hit her server and she saw it, her claims of ignorance vanish. She's got classified info in her mailbox and she should know that, given her position. My company would be nailed to the floor for violation far less significant than those on her system, and we are only covered by significantly less serious regulations like HIPAA and SOX. These standards are FAR less stringent than regulations governing US classified information. If you pick up the random person on the street and ask them whether or not they think running classified government information through a personal, private e-mail server is secure and compliant with the law, I'm fairly certain most people who give you a very firm "no" without needing to hear much more. I don't think you need to be highly trained to have an inkling of that being a bad idea. In a normal election season this apparent whitewash wouldn't matter, since the voting public would just vote for the other candidate and that would be that. In the last two election cycles, that would be Romney and McCain, and I would have expected them both to win handily. Unfortunately, her opponent is probably the most unpopular candidate in US political history, which makes this year's election the very essence of Giant Douche v **** Sandwich.
Fair enough...feel free to use Trump as an archery target next time he's in the UK on a weekend, though. It's about all he's good for.
Some interesting insight from "9/11 Mayor" Rudy Giuliani in a CBS interview. He's a bit of a blowhard most of the time, but this particular topic is well within his wheelhouse. He's a former prosecutor and spent a lot of his career working in the Justice Department. I think he makes a very cogent and credible argument, all told, and even shies away from speculating when CBS tried to lead him a couple of times. [video=youtube;adLXP8IRykY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adLXP8IRykY[/video]
It is a weird episode. Obv the motivation has to be Hilary's excessive desire for secrecy and control. It's not clear to me whether the investigation recovered enough to say definitively she wasn't covering up other wrongdoing, but that hasn't been found yet it seems. The wrongdoing is the arrangement itself. What is curious is that no one said 'stop using your personal email'. That would happen immediately in most areas of public service here. Something about the nature of power in the US. Would never happen at Westminster I imagine. Can't so much as buy your own curtains probably. This is what she says and I for one believe every word of it... https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/
The main reason for this was because no one at the State Dept knew she was conducting State business on her private server. It only came to light when information was requested for the Benghazi Committee hearings and they saw the clintonmail.com domain on one of her emails. With more investigation, they found out she was never set up with an email address on state.gov because she declined to have one and migrated all the official emails to her Clinton mail server. For the first 3 months of her tenure it was unsecured and unecrypted with all ports open to the internet - easy pickings for hackers. The Office of the Inspector General concluded in its report last month that her server broke State Dept rules and had she requested the use of her private email for government business, it would have been flatly denied. The FBI's decision whilst not surprising is embarrassing as it sets a precedent for private servers for all politicians to evade FOIA requests. Take into consideration she knowingly set up the server and held SAP (i.e. top secret emails) on her server and failed to hand them back once she left office. Last year a Navy reservist with access to security clearance took some secret files home so he could work from home was nailed by the FBI...the double standard is staggering.
I don't believe her, but it's something to vote on set against her racist republican opposition. It was never likely to be an issue to end with her being locked up.
A "women for Trump" even was organised at today's RNC. Apparently, there were no women present in the audience outside of the journalists covering the event and one intern. The panel actually had to answer questions that they asked themselves. :]]
Nice to see Trump has inspired the wonderful white supremacist, Nazi-sympathing, anti-Semite convicted felon David Duke into running for elected office in Louisiana. Did I also mention he used to be a Grand Wizard in the KKK? Lovely.
Saw this interesting article about Trump's links to the Putin administration. No idea how much of it can be verified but it's suggesting that Trump's business empire is seriously reliant upon Russian money and some of his staff have close links to the Putin establishment. It also questions a couple of his pro-Russian policy platforms. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing Add in the allegations that Russian intelligence agencies were behind the email hacking of the Democrats and quite possibly Clinton's emails and it seems reasonable to assume that Putin is trying to influence the election in the US. It will be interesting to see if any of the 30,000 deleted Clinton emails make their way into the public domain in the weeks leading up to the election. http://www.defenseone.com/technolog...influence-election-american-president/130163/ To those who live across the water - is this a big story in the States? Or is it considered a conspiracy theory?
Interesting. Return to the Cold War props up both isolationist positions. Putin hopes it makes him appear the sane man in the room.
It's been covered in a couple of articles but isn't really big news, as you might expect. US politics is so rife with conspiracy theories that people don't bat an eye when things like that appear. Ironically it probably would make an actual conspiracy easier to hide, since everyone is so used to them. The Clinton campaign has recently blamed some recent leaks on the Russians, however, so it's not complete lunacy. That's not strictly true. His polling has Trump to win if the election was held today. His long term projections for November still show a Clinton win at present, but considering the DNC only started yesterday it doesn't mean a lot. Having said that, she seems to be doing her level best to torpedo herself. In the light of the scandal over the DNC leadership deliberately trying to sabotage Sanders' bid to win the nomination, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been appointed chair of the Clinton campaign after resigning her DNS position. Sanders supporters are now in open revolt on the floor of the convention, and to be honest quite rightly so. If Clinton loses even 30% of Sanders voters she's probably hosed.
Got a decent bump from the DNC convention, which on a person note was a traffic nightmare for my self. She is back up about 5 points in most polls.
