Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[Johnette's Daddy]

Tick,
Joe might be yer best chance, doesn't matter though, come '17 Brock will be history and the light will come back on for us all.

Heh. We're well aware of your issue with light and dark as it pertains to the current sitting prez.

Amazing how many times a sizable majority of Americans voted for Brock . . .

[Toemeesleather]

No one has done more to divide this country along racial lines than Brock O'bammer!

[hedge]

I wonder why that woman was prejudiced against Spaniards? She clearly says "go back to Spain", not "go back to Mexico." Not sure what her animosity towards genuine Spaniards is all about. I thought the usual line of thinking was "When is a Mexican a Spaniard?" The answer being, "when he's dating your daughter..."

[Johnette's Daddy]

I actually agree with the Klan guy with respect to the shoes. The line that 99% of the murders are committed by blacks, not so much.

[youtube]WbgRwH7GxUU[/youtube]

[Professor Tiger]

Here is a rare cogent article from that conspiracy-theorist, right-wing nutjob screed, the Washington Post:

The Clinton e-mail scandal reached a new level of seriousness when the intelligence community inspector general found classified information from five intelligence agencies in e-mails housed on Clinton’s private server. It is against the law to remove classified information from government facilities and retain it after you have left office and have no official reason to possess it.

Just ask Sandy Berger.
Marc Thiessen writes a weekly column for The Post on foreign and domestic policy and contributes to the PostPartisan blog. He is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

In 2003, Bill Clinton’s former national security adviser was caught removing five classified documents from a secure reading room at the National Archives, as he prepared to testify before the 9/11 commission.

A Justice Department investigation ensued and in 2005 Berger reached a plea agreement in which he was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material instead of a felony. He was sentenced to two years of probation and 100 hours of community service and was stripped of his security clearance for three years. Prosecutors and defense lawyers agreed on a $10,000 fine, but the judge raised it to $50,000. In 2007, in order to shut down a disbarment investigation by the District of Columbia bar, he relinquished his license to practice law.

That was for unlawfully removing and retaining just five classified documents.

Clinton has apparently been caught removing at least five e-mails containing what we now know to be classified information and retaining them on her personal server in her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., after she left office. And in the weeks ahead, that number will probably grow to the hundreds, if not thousands.

The inspector general reviewed only a small sample of 40 e-mails Clinton turned over to the State Department. Yet in that tiny sample, he found that five e-mails contained classified information. Five classified e-mails in a sample of just 40 is a rate of one out of eight e-mails that contained classified information. Clinton has handed over some 30,000 official e-mails to the State Department that she had been keeping on her private server. That means there could be some 3,750 classified e-mails that she removed and retained.

Already, the number of documents is growing. More classified information was found in a second batch of e-mails made public Friday, which included 37 messages with 64 separate redactions blacking out classified information.

Worse still, Clinton’s apparent violation of the law is ongoing. Her lawyer, David Kendall, reportedly has a thumb drive containing all her official e-mails, including hundreds if not thousands containing classified information. That means that to this day, she apparently continues to unlawfully possess unsecured classified documents and has taken no action to return that thumb drive to the federal government, much less the server on which they were originally unlawfully stored.

Clinton claims that she “did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time.” But the inspector general found classified intelligence from five separate intelligence agencies — the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — in Clinton’s e-mails. Taking intelligence from classified documents and putting it in unclassified e-mails does not make the information unclassified. Indeed, that is arguably an additional offense. There is a separate classified e-mail system — called the SIPRNet — for classified communications. Clinton was required by law to use that system for any e-mails containing classified information.

If Sandy Berger had to pay a fine, serve two years of probation, do 100 hours of community service and give up his security clearance and law license, all for removing and retaining just five classified documents, what should Clinton’s punishment be for reportedly removing and retaining hundreds or even thousands of classified documents?

This is not a mere technicality. The recent revelation that Chinese hackers broke into the Office of Personnel Management and stole information on 22 million Americans has highlighted the need for increased vigilance in protect the nation’s secrets. Clinton’s decision to brazenly remove classified information and store it on a private server put sensitive intelligence within easy reach of America’s adversaries. If China can hack the Office of Personnel Management, it could easily hack into the private computer network she ran from her Chappaqua home.

The e-mail scandal is already having an impact on her presidential aspirations. A new Quinnipiac University poll finds Americans now say Clinton is not honest or trustworthy by a margin of 57 to 37 percent. And that was before Americans learned that her claims that there was no classified information in her e-mails was untrue. In the weeks and months ahead, more and more evidence will almost certainly emerge showing that her claims were untrue.

As it does, Clinton will be lucky if the only price she pays is in the polls. She could very well face criminal penalties. If that happens, her presidential ambitions will be over.

Because it’s hard to serve as commander in chief if you’ve been stripped of your security clearance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

[10ac]

Because it’s hard to serve as commander in chief if you’ve been stripped of your security clearance.

$he'd pardon herself.

[Johnette's Daddy]

Because it’s hard to serve as commander in chief if you’ve been stripped of your security clearance.

$he'd pardon herself.

POTUS has access to whatever s/he wants if they demonstrate "need to know," regardless of their clearance. Most of the time, they DON'T WANT TO KNOW - they prefer plausible deniability.

[bluetick]

Here is a rare cogent article from that conspiracy-theorist, right-wing nutjob screed, the Washington Post:

The Clinton e-mail scandal reached a new level of seriousness when the intelligence community inspector general found classified information from five intelligence agencies in e-mails housed on Clinton’s private server. It is against the law to remove classified information from government facilities and retain it after you have left office and have no official reason to possess it.

Just ask Sandy Berger.
Marc Thiessen writes a weekly column for The Post on foreign and domestic policy and contributes to the PostPartisan blog. He is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

In 2003, Bill Clinton’s former national security adviser was caught removing five classified documents from a secure reading room at the National Archives, as he prepared to testify before the 9/11 commission.

A Justice Department investigation ensued and in 2005 Berger reached a plea agreement in which he was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material instead of a felony. He was sentenced to two years of probation and 100 hours of community service and was stripped of his security clearance for three years. Prosecutors and defense lawyers agreed on a $10,000 fine, but the judge raised it to $50,000. In 2007, in order to shut down a disbarment investigation by the District of Columbia bar, he relinquished his license to practice law.

That was for unlawfully removing and retaining just five classified documents.

Clinton has apparently been caught removing at least five e-mails containing what we now know to be classified information and retaining them on her personal server in her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., after she left office. And in the weeks ahead, that number will probably grow to the hundreds, if not thousands.

The inspector general reviewed only a small sample of 40 e-mails Clinton turned over to the State Department. Yet in that tiny sample, he found that five e-mails contained classified information. Five classified e-mails in a sample of just 40 is a rate of one out of eight e-mails that contained classified information. Clinton has handed over some 30,000 official e-mails to the State Department that she had been keeping on her private server. That means there could be some 3,750 classified e-mails that she removed and retained.

Already, the number of documents is growing. More classified information was found in a second batch of e-mails made public Friday, which included 37 messages with 64 separate redactions blacking out classified information.

Worse still, Clinton’s apparent violation of the law is ongoing. Her lawyer, David Kendall, reportedly has a thumb drive containing all her official e-mails, including hundreds if not thousands containing classified information. That means that to this day, she apparently continues to unlawfully possess unsecured classified documents and has taken no action to return that thumb drive to the federal government, much less the server on which they were originally unlawfully stored.

Clinton claims that she “did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time.” But the inspector general found classified intelligence from five separate intelligence agencies — the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — in Clinton’s e-mails. Taking intelligence from classified documents and putting it in unclassified e-mails does not make the information unclassified. Indeed, that is arguably an additional offense. There is a separate classified e-mail system — called the SIPRNet — for classified communications. Clinton was required by law to use that system for any e-mails containing classified information.

If Sandy Berger had to pay a fine, serve two years of probation, do 100 hours of community service and give up his security clearance and law license, all for removing and retaining just five classified documents, what should Clinton’s punishment be for reportedly removing and retaining hundreds or even thousands of classified documents?

This is not a mere technicality. The recent revelation that Chinese hackers broke into the Office of Personnel Management and stole information on 22 million Americans has highlighted the need for increased vigilance in protect the nation’s secrets. Clinton’s decision to brazenly remove classified information and store it on a private server put sensitive intelligence within easy reach of America’s adversaries. If China can hack the Office of Personnel Management, it could easily hack into the private computer network she ran from her Chappaqua home.

The e-mail scandal is already having an impact on her presidential aspirations. A new Quinnipiac University poll finds Americans now say Clinton is not honest or trustworthy by a margin of 57 to 37 percent. And that was before Americans learned that her claims that there was no classified information in her e-mails was untrue. In the weeks and months ahead, more and more evidence will almost certainly emerge showing that her claims were untrue.

As it does, Clinton will be lucky if the only price she pays is in the polls. She could very well face criminal penalties. If that happens, her presidential ambitions will be over.

Because it’s hard to serve as commander in chief if you’ve been stripped of your security clearance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

I don't know why I bother; if you RWers are so desperate to believe Hillary is toast because of this email squabble between the State Dept. and the CIA, who am I to burst your bubble?

But for the record, Marc Thiesson is dubya's former speechwriter and does the occasional op-ed dance for the WaPo. His Hillary-faces-criminal-charges wet dream is as ludicrous as...well, some of the speechifications he thought up for dubya. Fooled me once....can't fool me ag'in ya see hee Hee HEE.

[innocentbystander]

Pure feminist imperative + unfulfilled hypergamous desires for alpha-fux/beta-bux =

http://www.vice.com/read/give-your-mone ... simple-284

I am just curious, what exactly is unpaid emotional labor? Who needs to pay who for this labor, who is making who financially whole?

[Professor Tiger]

I am on record that I believe Hillary is not toast. She has a better than 50/50 chance of being elected.

All the crimes she obviously committed with her emails will be like Bill's genetic material on the carpet of the Oval Office - I.e. They will amount to nothing in the public's mind.

[Jungle Rat]

Beware of Kasich. He's sneaky good.

[innocentbystander]

I am on record that I believe Hillary is not toast. She has a better than 50/50 chance of being elected.

All the crimes she obviously committed with her emails will be like Bill's genetic material on the carpet of the Oval Office - I.e. They will amount to nothing in the public's mind.

She is going to win. HRC wins the POTUS on nothing other than the feminist imperative and name recognition. She need not answer even one question. She has people like prophet JD supporting her. There is nothing she could do or say that would cost HRC his support. So, why should she even speak?

[sardis]

Oh, about that ceo who was a hero to liberals...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/peo ... ostpopular

[hedge]

"So, why should she even speak?"

That's the same way I feel about you...

[Toemeesleather]

Good to know folks in Zimbabwe have more common sense than our talking media heads...


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/opini ... times&_r=2

[Professor Tiger]

Beware of Kasich. He's sneaky good.

I could easily vote for Kasich. His resume is excellent, his nerdy talkative policy wonk demeanor appeals to me (for some reason), and he might get Ohio.

[Jungle Rat]

He will get Ohio. Thats a given. He turned this state around. I never voted for him, I thought he was an asshole. But he made it work somehow.

[Johnette's Daddy]

Ala. Police Officer Recorded Saying Black Man Should Be Killed and His Death Covered Up

An Alabama police officer reportedly suggested killing a black resident and then covering up the incident as self-defense, The Guardian has uncovered.

Alexander City Police Officer Troy Middlebrooks was apparently “disciplined” after making the statements in May 2013 but kept his job and still goes out on patrols in the neighborhood. According to the report, the resident about whom the comments were made was paid $35,000 in an attempt by authorities to avoid a public lawsuit.

The payment was made to Vincent Bias, who is black, after a recording of Middlebrooks’ comments was played to the city’s police chief and the mayor, The Guardian notes.

In the recording, Middlebrooks referred to Bias as “that n--ger” who “needs a goddamn bullet.”

“This town is ridiculous,” Bias, 49, told The Guardian. “The police here feel they can do what they want, and often they do.”

Middlebrooks, a 33-year-old veteran of the U.S. Marines, reportedly made the threats to Bias’ brother-in-law during a stop at his home, which Bias was visiting. Police were at the home because of an unleashed dog.

Although Bias was inside the house and couldn’t hear, Middlebrooks reportedly complained to Bias’ brother-in-law, who is white, that he was tired of “that n--ger” getting out of jail. It was reportedly not Middlebrooks and Bias’ first encounter, since Middlebrooks had arrested Bias on drug charges earlier that year; Bias was later released on bail.

“Something’s going on with that f--king lawyer he knows, and that f--king ... the judge or something,” Middlebrooks was heard on a recording telling the brother-in-law.

What prompted the brother-in-law to record Middlebrooks was the officer’s alleged statement, “The police were going to pull [Bias] aside on a routine traffic stop and [Bias] would get killed.” The brother-in-law got a voice recorder that Bias had been carrying around with him, reportedly to get evidence of harassment by police. The brother-in-law then continued the conversation with Middlebrooks.

On the recording, The Guardian notes, Middlebrooks accused Bias of being threatening to his own relatives. The officer said that if it were he, he would “f--king kill that motherf--ker with whatever I had in the f--king house.

“And before the police got here, I’d f--king put marks all over my s--t and make it look like he was trying to f--king kill me. I goddamn guarantee you,” he continued. “What would it look like? Self-f--king defense. F--k that piece of s--t. I’m a lot different from a lot of these other folks. I’ll f--king tell you what’s on my f--king mind.

“That mother--ker right there needs a goddamn bullet,” Middlebrooks went on unrelentingly, trying to goad the brother-in-law. “And you f--king know exactly what I’m talking about. The way he f--king talks to you? Like you’re a f--king child? Like he’s your ... are you his bitch or something? He talks to you like that.”

Alexander City Police Chief Willie Robinson has defended Middlebrooks, claiming, “He was just talking. He really didn’t mean that,” according to The Guardian. Robinson insisted that Middlebrooks was “disciplined” but refused to go into detail about how.

Robinson also said that Middlebrooks was telling the brother-in-law to carry out the planned murder. “He wasn’t saying that he was going to do that,” the police chief told The Guardian. “He was talking about the man doing it himself.”

Bias was given a citation for the illegally unleashed dog, even though the dog belonged to his brother-in-law, which the police were reportedly told. He was also told by an officer that he would be fined for an illegal electrical connection that was found on the property, for which Bias also insisted that he was not responsible.

Bias, who has spent some time in prison, says he has been singled out because he is black and because he was in a relationship with a white woman. The 49-year-old complained that for approximately two years he’s been met with an “exorbitant number of traffic tickets, citations and concocted city code violations.”

http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/20 ... content%26

[10ac]

Oh My God!!!

[sardis]

Why pick on Alabama?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... s-detained