Trump Voters.... why?

[nereo]

As a conservative, I do not beleive in sparing industies from creative destruction. But as a less hardcore one, I believe we ought to fund some training and education to help them find new careers.

Huh.  Isn't that basically HRC's plan?

[Metric Mouse]

As a conservative, I do not beleive in sparing industies from creative destruction. But as a less hardcore one, I believe we ought to fund some training and education to help them find new careers.

Huh.  Isn't that basically HRC's plan?

Would anyone believe her? Isn't that what is supposed to have been helping inner city poor for several decades?

[Free_at_50]

Hi nereo.  It isn't just me saying Podesta created a conflict of interest.  Read those articles.  He was required to sign papers and take steps to eliminate any concerns and it doesn't appear he did so when he put his daughter in law in charge of his stock.  You can hold him to a lower standard if you want.  In regards to companies that do business with him your position is they can't help themselves?  Again I will assert (with only my personal understanding of how many companies it takes to build a building) that for every company that Trump disputes payment there are dozens that he doesn't because they did a good job.  For what it is worth I will again state that I don't like Trump even though I do agree with some of his proposals.  My main concern is to stop the Clinton's from getting back into power and voting for any other candidate can't accomplish that.  For the most part I am taking up the advocate position on Trump just to balance the scales a bit as this ship seems to be tilted to one side.  If we all agreed what fun would that be....  Also someone mentioned that they think I dislike democrats/liberals.  That isn't true.  Just criminal ones.

I am assuming you didn't read the article about the Trump Taj project. Well I'll put it bluntly. Trump hired contractors to do a job. Those contractors did their job. At no point did Trump claim they did a poor job nor refuse to pay them because of this. He did however have all kinds of financial issues (massive debt), which he lied about, and ultimately could not afford to pay those contractors.

Figuring out that litigation would probably cost more and take years, the contractors and Trump settled on drastically reduced payments. So reduced that some folks went out of business (we are talking millions). I guess it's ok because he pays some folks. That logic is a bit flawed but let's be honest, supporting Trump means you have to accept some extremely flawed logic. 

Asking why folks still do business with Trump is pretty disingenuous. A self imposed multi-billionaire looking for contractors isn't going to have a tough time finding them. Regardless of his past.

Here's my blunt response Beginner.  I read the USA today article and I don't see anything related to the Taj Mahal project as you describe it above so if I'm looking at the wrong article let me know.   Having lived in NJ during that time I did recall that the Taj Mahal project was quite a mess so I looked it up on Wikipedia.  The project wasn't even started by Trump and probably left quite a few contractors out in the cold before Trump was even involved.  That being said the project at the point he got involved cost almost a billion dollars to complete, which he did.  I can't find any details on whether or not the 96 million the article states was in dispute related to over 200 subcontractors originated from the original project or from when Trump got involved but it was probably a mix of both.  Also during that time the country was going through a recession which I am sure in part resulted in the prepackaged bankruptcy.  I actually lost my job during that down turn as my company all but folded.  So I would say in conclusion it is never as simple as some new's organizations would like to make it out to be.  I am sure Trump probably shafted some contractors who probably deserved more but in his mind they provided substandard work.  At least that is what he says in the article you asked me to read.

From Wikepedia:

"Construction of the Taj Mahal was begun in 1983 by Resorts International, owner of the neighboring Resorts Casino Hotel, with an estimated budget of $250 million.[4][5] Resorts head James Crosby said it might be named the United States Hotel, in reference to the city's first major hotel.[6]
After Crosby's death in April 1986, Resorts International became a takeover target.[7] The Taj Mahal had encountered construction problems, and Crosby's heirs, lacking experience in large development projects, doubted their ability to complete it successfully.[8] Donald Trump, who owned two other Atlantic City casinos, beat out several other bidders to purchase a controlling stake in the company for $79 million in July 1987.[9] Trump was appointed chairman of Resorts International, and said he would complete the Taj Mahal in about a year.[9]
Because New Jersey law prohibited anyone from owning more than three casinos, Trump planned to close the original Resorts casino and operate it as a hotel annex to the Taj Mahal.[10][11]
As the total budget had ballooned to $930 million, Resorts sought to raise $550 million to complete the Taj Mahal, but struggled to find the financing.[12] With the company claiming to be near bankruptcy in early 1988, Trump made a tender offer to buy all outstanding stock for $22 a share, stating that he was willing to personally finance the construction, but only if he owned the entire company.[13] Television producer Merv Griffin made an unexpected offer to purchase the company for $35 a share,[14] sparking a highly publicized takeover battle,[15] with Trump and Griffin filing lawsuits against each other.[16] The two ultimately reached a settlement, which was executed in November 1988, with Griffin purchasing the company, and Trump purchasing the Taj Mahal from the company for $273 million.[17]
Trump raised $675 million to finance the purchase and completion of the casino, primarily through junk bonds with a 14 percent interest rate.[18][19]
The casino opened on April 2, 1990.[20] With 120,000 square feet (11,000 m2) of gaming space, it claimed to be the largest casino in the world (though this was disputed by the Riviera),[21] and billed itself as the "eighth wonder of the world."[22] An elaborate grand opening ceremony was held three days later.[23]
In 1991, the Taj Mahal went through a prepackaged bankruptcy, resulting in Trump giving a 50 percent stake in the business to its bondholders in exchange for lowered interest rates and a longer payoff schedule.[24][25]
Trump's new publicly traded company, Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, purchased the Taj Mahal in 1996, in a transaction that valued the property at $890 million.[26][27]
The Taj Mahal was the highest grossing casino in the city until the opening of The Borgata in 2003. The Chairman Tower opened in 2008, bringing the complex to over 2,000 rooms."

[waltworks]

Would anyone believe her? Isn't that what is supposed to have been helping inner city poor for several decades?

What specific programs are you referring to? Federal antipoverty programs are usually tied to income and/or age, not "inner city" status (plenty of suburban and rural people receive a variety of aid). Are you referring to the "welfare reform" package signed by Bill Clinton in the 1990s?

For what it's worth, to many people, the term "inner city" is considered a code word for "black". I don't think you meant it that way but it is probably worth avoiding the term in general.

-Walt

[Cressida]

I'm pretty sure the Democrats could have nominated anyone who

• Wasn't named Clinton

...and walked away with the election against Trump.  Really, I'm trying to think of other things they would have had to be, but... if Clinton is currently ahead I find it hard to imagine that someone named Sanders/Warren/Biden/Keane/O'Malley/Webb/Castro/Booker would be not be doing even better.

I don't disagree strongly, but I'm going to push back a little. Yes, Clinton has a big liability, which is that a lot of voters, fairly or unfairly*, really dislike her. But she also has strengths. She's undeniably smart and works very hard and debates well; and if she was able to identify Trump's weaknesses and exploit them in debate, it seems reasonable to assume she could have done the same with other flawed nominees like Rubio or Cruz or Bush. We don't know that "someone named Sanders etc." would have had those same strengths, so I don't think it's obvious that they, even without the liability of being widely disliked, would necessarily be performing ahead of where Clinton currently is.

*Not going to litigate that one here.

[arebelspy]

I find it odd that some people who decry the government's legal use of metadata analysis (no email content) have no problem with foreign government's hacking personal email accounts of private citizens and then publishing them.  These same people have no problem reading private emails nor posting snippets without context.

As someone who falls into this viewpoint, I'll defend it:
There's a big difference between a government using its power against its citizens who have done nothing wrong, and the release of information about our potential leaders.

It's not hypocritical to want transparency in our government, but not forced transparency of all private citizens by their government.

[MasterStache]

Hi nereo.  It isn't just me saying Podesta created a conflict of interest.  Read those articles.  He was required to sign papers and take steps to eliminate any concerns and it doesn't appear he did so when he put his daughter in law in charge of his stock.  You can hold him to a lower standard if you want.  In regards to companies that do business with him your position is they can't help themselves?  Again I will assert (with only my personal understanding of how many companies it takes to build a building) that for every company that Trump disputes payment there are dozens that he doesn't because they did a good job.  For what it is worth I will again state that I don't like Trump even though I do agree with some of his proposals.  My main concern is to stop the Clinton's from getting back into power and voting for any other candidate can't accomplish that.  For the most part I am taking up the advocate position on Trump just to balance the scales a bit as this ship seems to be tilted to one side.  If we all agreed what fun would that be....  Also someone mentioned that they think I dislike democrats/liberals.  That isn't true.  Just criminal ones.

I am assuming you didn't read the article about the Trump Taj project. Well I'll put it bluntly. Trump hired contractors to do a job. Those contractors did their job. At no point did Trump claim they did a poor job nor refuse to pay them because of this. He did however have all kinds of financial issues (massive debt), which he lied about, and ultimately could not afford to pay those contractors.

Figuring out that litigation would probably cost more and take years, the contractors and Trump settled on drastically reduced payments. So reduced that some folks went out of business (we are talking millions). I guess it's ok because he pays some folks. That logic is a bit flawed but let's be honest, supporting Trump means you have to accept some extremely flawed logic. 

Asking why folks still do business with Trump is pretty disingenuous. A self imposed multi-billionaire looking for contractors isn't going to have a tough time finding them. Regardless of his past.

Here's my blunt response Beginner.  I read the USA today article and I don't see anything related to the Taj Mahal project as you describe it above so if I'm looking at the wrong article let me know.   Having lived in NJ during that time I did recall that the Taj Mahal project was quite a mess so I looked it up on Wikipedia.  The project wasn't even started by Trump and probably left quite a few contractors out in the cold before Trump was even involved.  That being said the project at the point he got involved cost almost a billion dollars to complete, which he did.  I can't find any details on whether or not the 96 million the article states was in dispute related to over 200 subcontractors originated from the original project or from when Trump got involved but it was probably a mix of both.  Also during that time the country was going through a recession which I am sure in part resulted in the prepackaged bankruptcy.  I actually lost my job during that down turn as my company all but folded.  So I would say in conclusion it is never as simple as some new's organizations would like to make it out to be.  I am sure Trump probably shafted some contractors who probably deserved more but in his mind they provided substandard work.  At least that is what he says in the article you asked me to read.

From Wikepedia:

"Construction of the Taj Mahal was begun in 1983 by Resorts International, owner of the neighboring Resorts Casino Hotel, with an estimated budget of $250 million.[4][5] Resorts head James Crosby said it might be named the United States Hotel, in reference to the city's first major hotel.[6]
After Crosby's death in April 1986, Resorts International became a takeover target.[7] The Taj Mahal had encountered construction problems, and Crosby's heirs, lacking experience in large development projects, doubted their ability to complete it successfully.[8] Donald Trump, who owned two other Atlantic City casinos, beat out several other bidders to purchase a controlling stake in the company for $79 million in July 1987.[9] Trump was appointed chairman of Resorts International, and said he would complete the Taj Mahal in about a year.[9]
Because New Jersey law prohibited anyone from owning more than three casinos, Trump planned to close the original Resorts casino and operate it as a hotel annex to the Taj Mahal.[10][11]
As the total budget had ballooned to $930 million, Resorts sought to raise $550 million to complete the Taj Mahal, but struggled to find the financing.[12] With the company claiming to be near bankruptcy in early 1988, Trump made a tender offer to buy all outstanding stock for $22 a share, stating that he was willing to personally finance the construction, but only if he owned the entire company.[13] Television producer Merv Griffin made an unexpected offer to purchase the company for $35 a share,[14] sparking a highly publicized takeover battle,[15] with Trump and Griffin filing lawsuits against each other.[16] The two ultimately reached a settlement, which was executed in November 1988, with Griffin purchasing the company, and Trump purchasing the Taj Mahal from the company for $273 million.[17]
Trump raised $675 million to finance the purchase and completion of the casino, primarily through junk bonds with a 14 percent interest rate.[18][19]
The casino opened on April 2, 1990.[20] With 120,000 square feet (11,000 m2) of gaming space, it claimed to be the largest casino in the world (though this was disputed by the Riviera),[21] and billed itself as the "eighth wonder of the world."[22] An elaborate grand opening ceremony was held three days later.[23]
In 1991, the Taj Mahal went through a prepackaged bankruptcy, resulting in Trump giving a 50 percent stake in the business to its bondholders in exchange for lowered interest rates and a longer payoff schedule.[24][25]
Trump's new publicly traded company, Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, purchased the Taj Mahal in 1996, in a transaction that valued the property at $890 million.[26][27]
The Taj Mahal was the highest grossing casino in the city until the opening of The Borgata in 2003. The Chairman Tower opened in 2008, bringing the complex to over 2,000 rooms."

You sure are. I'll post again. First hand experiences of Trump's lies and resulting litigation.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/10bbe40a86774bac9ad1fbd3a936c808/little-guy-contractors-still-angry-trump-taj-bankruptcy

[Free_at_50]

Hi nereo.  It isn't just me saying Podesta created a conflict of interest.  Read those articles.  He was required to sign papers and take steps to eliminate any concerns and it doesn't appear he did so when he put his daughter in law in charge of his stock.  You can hold him to a lower standard if you want.  In regards to companies that do business with him your position is they can't help themselves?  Again I will assert (with only my personal understanding of how many companies it takes to build a building) that for every company that Trump disputes payment there are dozens that he doesn't because they did a good job.  For what it is worth I will again state that I don't like Trump even though I do agree with some of his proposals.  My main concern is to stop the Clinton's from getting back into power and voting for any other candidate can't accomplish that.  For the most part I am taking up the advocate position on Trump just to balance the scales a bit as this ship seems to be tilted to one side.  If we all agreed what fun would that be....  Also someone mentioned that they think I dislike democrats/liberals.  That isn't true.  Just criminal ones.

I am assuming you didn't read the article about the Trump Taj project. Well I'll put it bluntly. Trump hired contractors to do a job. Those contractors did their job. At no point did Trump claim they did a poor job nor refuse to pay them because of this. He did however have all kinds of financial issues (massive debt), which he lied about, and ultimately could not afford to pay those contractors.

Figuring out that litigation would probably cost more and take years, the contractors and Trump settled on drastically reduced payments. So reduced that some folks went out of business (we are talking millions). I guess it's ok because he pays some folks. That logic is a bit flawed but let's be honest, supporting Trump means you have to accept some extremely flawed logic. 

Asking why folks still do business with Trump is pretty disingenuous. A self imposed multi-billionaire looking for contractors isn't going to have a tough time finding them. Regardless of his past.

Here's my blunt response Beginner.  I read the USA today article and I don't see anything related to the Taj Mahal project as you describe it above so if I'm looking at the wrong article let me know.   Having lived in NJ during that time I did recall that the Taj Mahal project was quite a mess so I looked it up on Wikipedia.  The project wasn't even started by Trump and probably left quite a few contractors out in the cold before Trump was even involved.  That being said the project at the point he got involved cost almost a billion dollars to complete, which he did.  I can't find any details on whether or not the 96 million the article states was in dispute related to over 200 subcontractors originated from the original project or from when Trump got involved but it was probably a mix of both.  Also during that time the country was going through a recession which I am sure in part resulted in the prepackaged bankruptcy.  I actually lost my job during that down turn as my company all but folded.  So I would say in conclusion it is never as simple as some new's organizations would like to make it out to be.  I am sure Trump probably shafted some contractors who probably deserved more but in his mind they provided substandard work.  At least that is what he says in the article you asked me to read.

From Wikepedia:

"Construction of the Taj Mahal was begun in 1983 by Resorts International, owner of the neighboring Resorts Casino Hotel, with an estimated budget of $250 million.[4][5] Resorts head James Crosby said it might be named the United States Hotel, in reference to the city's first major hotel.[6]
After Crosby's death in April 1986, Resorts International became a takeover target.[7] The Taj Mahal had encountered construction problems, and Crosby's heirs, lacking experience in large development projects, doubted their ability to complete it successfully.[8] Donald Trump, who owned two other Atlantic City casinos, beat out several other bidders to purchase a controlling stake in the company for $79 million in July 1987.[9] Trump was appointed chairman of Resorts International, and said he would complete the Taj Mahal in about a year.[9]
Because New Jersey law prohibited anyone from owning more than three casinos, Trump planned to close the original Resorts casino and operate it as a hotel annex to the Taj Mahal.[10][11]
As the total budget had ballooned to $930 million, Resorts sought to raise $550 million to complete the Taj Mahal, but struggled to find the financing.[12] With the company claiming to be near bankruptcy in early 1988, Trump made a tender offer to buy all outstanding stock for $22 a share, stating that he was willing to personally finance the construction, but only if he owned the entire company.[13] Television producer Merv Griffin made an unexpected offer to purchase the company for $35 a share,[14] sparking a highly publicized takeover battle,[15] with Trump and Griffin filing lawsuits against each other.[16] The two ultimately reached a settlement, which was executed in November 1988, with Griffin purchasing the company, and Trump purchasing the Taj Mahal from the company for $273 million.[17]
Trump raised $675 million to finance the purchase and completion of the casino, primarily through junk bonds with a 14 percent interest rate.[18][19]
The casino opened on April 2, 1990.[20] With 120,000 square feet (11,000 m2) of gaming space, it claimed to be the largest casino in the world (though this was disputed by the Riviera),[21] and billed itself as the "eighth wonder of the world."[22] An elaborate grand opening ceremony was held three days later.[23]
In 1991, the Taj Mahal went through a prepackaged bankruptcy, resulting in Trump giving a 50 percent stake in the business to its bondholders in exchange for lowered interest rates and a longer payoff schedule.[24][25]
Trump's new publicly traded company, Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts, purchased the Taj Mahal in 1996, in a transaction that valued the property at $890 million.[26][27]
The Taj Mahal was the highest grossing casino in the city until the opening of The Borgata in 2003. The Chairman Tower opened in 2008, bringing the complex to over 2,000 rooms."

You sure are. I'll post again. First hand experiences of Trump's lies and resulting litigation.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/10bbe40a86774bac9ad1fbd3a936c808/little-guy-contractors-still-angry-trump-taj-bankruptcy

ok now I get where you are coming from.  And yes I agree that Trump, especially on that project, went about as low as one could go in his business dealings.  Like I have said he has always been seen as extremely aggressive (some would say ruthless) in his business dealings. That being said I found it interesting that one of the featured subcontractors, Lundy, had these final words to say about Trump:

"Lundy, the contractor with the sick grandfather, also took Trump up on his offer of working for him in Atlantic City again. But the deal didn't come together without another court fight. He says he had to sue Trump for not honoring the "right of first refusal."

Still, like some others among the contractors contacted by the AP, Lundy doesn't believe Trump acted badly given the hardball, sometimes unscrupulous nature of industry.

"It's a big boy's game," Lundy says."

[Jacks flunky]

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it is moral/ethical. This goes for both sides, though my perception is that Trump has ventured further that way than Clinton, at least as far as personal gain goes. I want a leader who isn't ready to shaft as many people as possible within the law. That isn't leadership.

Sent on my phone. Pardon the autocorrect.

[nereo]

I'm pretty sure the Democrats could have nominated anyone who

• Wasn't named Clinton

...and walked away with the election against Trump.  Really, I'm trying to think of other things they would have had to be, but... if Clinton is currently ahead I find it hard to imagine that someone named Sanders/Warren/Biden/Keane/O'Malley/Webb/Castro/Booker would be not be doing even better.

I don't disagree strongly, but I'm going to push back a little. Yes, Clinton has a big liability, which is that a lot of voters, fairly or unfairly*, really dislike her. But she also has strengths. She's undeniably smart and works very hard and debates well; and if she was able to identify Trump's weaknesses and exploit them in debate, it seems reasonable to assume she could have done the same with other flawed nominees like Rubio or Cruz or Bush. We don't know that "someone named Sanders etc." would have had those same strengths, so I don't think it's obvious that they, even without the liability of being widely disliked, would necessarily be performing ahead of where Clinton currently is.

*Not going to litigate that one here.

Well I'm not sure we are actually disagreeing on much here.  I agree that Cl.inton has a lot of Strengths, that's why I voted for her.  I disagree with some of her positions but think she has the experience.
Her unpopularity among broad swaths of the electorate are why I made the statement above. Her approval rating is historically low.  Even a large chunk of reliable democrats don't particularly care for her. Worse, unlike many candidates she's been unable to shake unapproval, land I think it's because we've been hearing about her for over two decades, and she's been tarred and feathered continuously by the right. (Fairly or not)

So: with no true way this is even testable I think any number of qualified democrats who don't have the unfavorable numbers baked in would be way ahead of DJT simply because the broader electorate thinks even less of him

Put another way... if we could take all of Clintons positions and experience ad personality  and copy them into someone named Jane Doe who the country at large had never heard of before 2014, I think she would be much further ahead.  Interestingly, I think to opposite would happen if you copied DJT but transferred him into another man he wouldn't have made it out of the gate

[nereo]

I find it odd that some people who decry the government's legal use of metadata analysis (no email content) have no problem with foreign government's hacking personal email accounts of private citizens and then publishing them.  These same people have no problem reading private emails nor posting snippets without context.

As someone who falls into this viewpoint, I'll defend it:
There's a big difference between a government using its power against its citizens who have done nothing wrong, and the release of information about our potential leaders.

It's not hypocritical to want transparency in our government, but not forced transparency of all private citizens by their government.

Ok rebs - what does this mean about a citizen running for office and his or her right to privacy? Is it too much for them to expect that they should be able to have frank, strategic and sometimes nasty conversations in private and have them remain private?
Can a public citizen still have private conversations?

[deadlymonkey]

I find it odd that some people who decry the government's legal use of metadata analysis (no email content) have no problem with foreign government's hacking personal email accounts of private citizens and then publishing them.  These same people have no problem reading private emails nor posting snippets without context.

As someone who falls into this viewpoint, I'll defend it:
There's a big difference between a government using its power against its citizens who have done nothing wrong, and the release of information about our potential leaders.

It's not hypocritical to want transparency in our government, but not forced transparency of all private citizens by their government.

Ok rebs - what does this mean about a citizen running for office and his or her right to privacy? Is it too much for them to expect that they should be able to have frank, strategic and sometimes nasty conversations in private and have them remain private?
Can a public citizen still have private conversations?

or to pile on, I was specifically referring to the private emails of Podesta who was at the time not running for office or in an elected position (a private individual) as opposed to Clinton (public).  Just like there was an uproar of the hacked celebrity nude photos, there is an expectation of privacy from private email conversations that are neither required nor expected by law to ever be public.

[arebelspy]

Ok rebs - what does this mean about a citizen running for office and his or her right to privacy? Is it too much for them to expect that they should be able to have frank, strategic and sometimes nasty conversations in private and have them remain private?
Can a public citizen still have private conversations?

I think there's a clear difference in what is just dirty laundry, and stuff related to the public interest.

Responsible journalists should be used to vet and filter pertinent information.

[Free_at_50]

morning all.  Let's get the day started with some fun.  As you know I believe the Clinton's are a criminal organization that involves collusion with various branches of our government including the DOJ.  We already know that Bill Clinton and the Attorney General Loretta Lynch are such good friends that they like to discuss their grandkids and golf on planes sitting on tarmacs. Regarding the latest email server investigation The DOJ says it will join in with the FBI in the process.  Peter Kadzik, the assistant ag, sent the letter to congress informing them.  Interestingly enough it appears that Peter is also friends with John Podesta (see couple emails below).  My question is, do any of these relationships concern you that the DOJ leadership may be a bit bias?   Gotta run out for a few hours but look forward to your insightful replies!

Couple Wikileaks emails showing Kadzik and Podesta relationship:

Re: Dinner tomorrow night

From:john.podesta@gmail.com
To: peterkadzik@gmail.com
Date: 2016-01-13 01:39
Subject: Re: Dinner tomorrow night

Yes sorry. 7:30 at our place

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016, Peter Kadzik <peterkadzik@gmail.com> wrote:

> We on?



PJ & Amy


From:peterkadzik@gmail.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2015-04-08 00:06
Subject: PJ & Amy


John,
Hope all is well in Hillaryland. I mentioned to you previously that PJ,
who lives in NYC, is interested in working on the campaign. He would be a
great assistant for someone and he has great experience. OK if I have him
send you his resume? Amy had her hip surgery last week. Not a home run,
but recovery should be easier. Let's get together when you have some time
in DC
Peter

[radram]

Ok rebs - what does this mean about a citizen running for office and his or her right to privacy? Is it too much for them to expect that they should be able to have frank, strategic and sometimes nasty conversations in private and have them remain private?
Can a public citizen still have private conversations?

I think there's a clear difference in what is just dirty laundry, and stuff related to the public interest.

Responsible journalists should be used to vet and filter pertinent information.

Interesting. Could a responsible journalist of say 100 years ago publish ANY of the Wikileaks items? An unverifiable source obtained by questionable means at best and most likely obtained through a cyber-attack on an american citizen. Or is it more that the responsible journalist must publish it ALL so as to remove any appearance of being biased? Somewhere in between?

[NoStacheOhio]

Ok rebs - what does this mean about a citizen running for office and his or her right to privacy? Is it too much for them to expect that they should be able to have frank, strategic and sometimes nasty conversations in private and have them remain private?
Can a public citizen still have private conversations?

I think there's a clear difference in what is just dirty laundry, and stuff related to the public interest.

Responsible journalists should be used to vet and filter pertinent information.

Interesting. Could a responsible journalist of say 100 years ago publish ANY of the Wikileaks items? An unverifiable source obtained by questionable means at best and most likely obtained through a cyber-attack on an american citizen. Or is it more that the responsible journalist must publish it ALL so as to remove any appearance of being biased? Somewhere in between?

A responsible journalist vets the documents. This means dogging officials until you get an answer, trying to find someone with direct knowledge who will affirm the validity of the documents (this may involve using anonymous sources known to the journalist, but not published). This is how responsible investigative journalism works, and it's what brings down corrupt administrations.

[cliffhanger]

I find it odd that some people who decry the government's legal use of metadata analysis (no email content) have no problem with foreign government's hacking personal email accounts of private citizens and then publishing them.  These same people have no problem reading private emails nor posting snippets without context.

As someone who falls into this viewpoint, I'll defend it:
There's a big difference between a government using its power against its citizens who have done nothing wrong, and the release of information about our potential leaders.

It's not hypocritical to want transparency in our government, but not forced transparency of all private citizens by their government.

Ok rebs - what does this mean about a citizen running for office and his or her right to privacy? Is it too much for them to expect that they should be able to have frank, strategic and sometimes nasty conversations in private and have them remain private?
Can a public citizen still have private conversations?

or to pile on, I was specifically referring to the private emails of Podesta who was at the time not running for office or in an elected position (a private individual) as opposed to Clinton (public).  Just like there was an uproar of the hacked celebrity nude photos, there is an expectation of privacy from private email conversations that are neither required nor expected by law to ever be public.

fyi, the Podesta 'hack' was likely a phishing scam.

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-campaign-john-podesta-got-hacked-by-phishing-2016-10

Of course every citizen has the right to privacy, but Podesta made a mistake that exposed himself. Training to prevent these type of scams should be the absolute easiest step to take.

[deadlymonkey]

I find it odd that some people who decry the government's legal use of metadata analysis (no email content) have no problem with foreign government's hacking personal email accounts of private citizens and then publishing them.  These same people have no problem reading private emails nor posting snippets without context.

As someone who falls into this viewpoint, I'll defend it:
There's a big difference between a government using its power against its citizens who have done nothing wrong, and the release of information about our potential leaders.

It's not hypocritical to want transparency in our government, but not forced transparency of all private citizens by their government.

Ok rebs - what does this mean about a citizen running for office and his or her right to privacy? Is it too much for them to expect that they should be able to have frank, strategic and sometimes nasty conversations in private and have them remain private?
Can a public citizen still have private conversations?

or to pile on, I was specifically referring to the private emails of Podesta who was at the time not running for office or in an elected position (a private individual) as opposed to Clinton (public).  Just like there was an uproar of the hacked celebrity nude photos, there is an expectation of privacy from private email conversations that are neither required nor expected by law to ever be public.

fyi, the Podesta 'hack' was likely a phishing scam.

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-campaign-john-podesta-got-hacked-by-phishing-2016-10

Of course every citizen has the right to privacy, but Podesta made a mistake that exposed himself. Training to prevent these type of scams should be the absolute easiest step to take.

You are not seriously saying that Podesta got what he deserved for falling for a phishing scam are you?  Of course in the real world no one ever falls for phishing scams especially well crafted one, but that is akin to blaming someone fro being raped because of the way they dressed.

BTW, I'm sure he got cyber security training as everyone who was at some point associated with the federal government do.  I have not seen any reports detailing a phishing email but they can be crafted so expertly that it would fool almost anybody (we aren't talking the help me smuggle money out of my poor country email).

[nereo]

Ok rebs - what does this mean about a citizen running for office and his or her right to privacy? Is it too much for them to expect that they should be able to have frank, strategic and sometimes nasty conversations in private and have them remain private?
Can a public citizen still have private conversations?

I think there's a clear difference in what is just dirty laundry, and stuff related to the public interest.

Responsible journalists should be used to vet and filter pertinent information.

I'm either not understanding this answer or I"m not satisfied by it.
What I'm talking about is whether a citizen running for public office has a right and expectation that they can hold a private conversation.
Let's say I decide to run for MMM Senior Administrator (campaign motto: "No More Spies, No More Lies!" - catchy, huh?).  If I send MDM a private message asking him to give me examples of when you locked up threads just because you didn't agree with someone, and MDM sends me a 3 page list back - should that be public information?

I agree that we need transparency in government; with voting records, accounting for funding (including campaign contributions), and business dealings. But I would argue that every person still has the right to a private conversation (regardless of whether its via email or face-to-face in a hot air balloon).  Relying on "responsible journalists" to vet information seems fairly quaint in this world where basically anyone can consider themselves a freelance journalist and where many self-described journalists are trying to actively push an agenda.  Further, when reputable journalists do vet and withhold information they get dragged through the mud for having "an agenda".  No longer is there a physical limit on what can be printed, so there's been a distinct shift towards "put everything online and let the people sort it out".

[cliffhanger]

fyi, the Podesta 'hack' was likely a phishing scam.

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-campaign-john-podesta-got-hacked-by-phishing-2016-10

Of course every citizen has the right to privacy, but Podesta made a mistake that exposed himself. Training to prevent these type of scams should be the absolute easiest step to take.

You are not seriously saying that Podesta got what he deserved for falling for a phishing scam are you?  Of course in the real world no one ever falls for phishing scams especially well crafted one, but that is akin to blaming someone fro being raped because of the way they dressed.

BTW, I'm sure he got cyber security training as everyone who was at some point associated with the federal government do.  I have not seen any reports detailing a phishing email but they can be crafted so expertly that it would fool almost anybody (we aren't talking the help me smuggle money out of my poor country email).

Assuming that phishing was indeed the source of the leak, I didn't realize that me stating Podesta made a mistake was the same as saying he deserved it. I mean, even his IT guy said the email was legit. He didn't deserve to have his emails leaked, but him and his staff could have prevented this from happening. The text of the email is show in the Business Insider article I posted.

It is not akin to saying someone deserved to get raped by what they wore. I never have and never will say something so stupid.

[deadlymonkey]

fyi, the Podesta 'hack' was likely a phishing scam.

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-campaign-john-podesta-got-hacked-by-phishing-2016-10

Of course every citizen has the right to privacy, but Podesta made a mistake that exposed himself. Training to prevent these type of scams should be the absolute easiest step to take.

You are not seriously saying that Podesta got what he deserved for falling for a phishing scam are you?  Of course in the real world no one ever falls for phishing scams especially well crafted one, but that is akin to blaming someone fro being raped because of the way they dressed.

BTW, I'm sure he got cyber security training as everyone who was at some point associated with the federal government do.  I have not seen any reports detailing a phishing email but they can be crafted so expertly that it would fool almost anybody (we aren't talking the help me smuggle money out of my poor country email).

Assuming that phishing was indeed the source of the leak, I didn't realize that me stating Podesta made a mistake was the same as saying he deserved it. I mean, even his IT guy said the email was legit. He didn't deserve to have his emails leaked, but him and his staff could have prevented this from happening. The text of the email is show in the Business Insider article I posted.

It is not akin to saying someone deserved to get raped by what they wore. I never have and never will say something so stupid.

I apologize if I misread your intention but the crux of your post was "He doesn't deserve to have privacy invaded, BUT he made a mistake and exposed himself ¯\_(ツ)_/¯."

also see  "he didn't serve to have his car stolen, BUT he parked in a bad neighborhood."  "She didn't serve to have her purse stolen, BUT she set it down at the restaurant." etc...

[NoStacheOhio]

I agree that we need transparency in government; with voting records, accounting for funding (including campaign contributions), and business dealings. But I would argue that every person still has the right to a private conversation (regardless of whether its via email or face-to-face in a hot air balloon).  Relying on "responsible journalists" to vet information seems fairly quaint in this world where basically anyone can consider themselves a freelance journalist and where many self-described journalists are trying to actively push an agenda.  Further, when reputable journalists do vet and withhold information they get dragged through the mud for having "an agenda".  No longer is there a physical limit on what can be printed, so there's been a distinct shift towards "put everything online and let the people sort it out".

I agree about the right to conduct a private conversation, but email gets a little weird. Let's set aside the server and Russia issues for a moment.

1. Government employees conducting work-related communication over government email do NOT have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Government email is subject to the same rules as other official communications: FOIA applies, as do any departmental IT rules.

2. Government employees communicating over personal email probably have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but still have to abide by the rules governing what information they're allowed to put in a personal email.

3. Non-government entities (DNC, Campaigns) are treated largely the same as corporations; individuals don't necessarily have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the entity as a whole generally does.

[sol]

I think there's a clear difference in what is just dirty laundry, and stuff related to the public interest.
[/quoe]

Ugh.  This is the whole issue behind the demise of Gawker, which published a sex tape starring a celebrity because just because he was a celebrity, and that made him newsworthy.  They argued that being famous means that disclosing your dirty laundry is in the public interest.  How do you feel about that?

Responsible journalists should be used to vet and filter pertinent information.

Ugh again. This is the whole issue behind wikileaks.  At first, they were releasing documents that had been redacted by wikileaks employees to conceal the names and addresses and credit card numbers of innocent people.  There was no journalistic interest in exposing these people to identify theft for no reason, but everyone cried bloody murder about wiki trying to be "journalists".  The public wanted EVERYTHING, unredacted, even if that meant putting innocent people at risk, because anything short of a complete disclosure potentially constituted tampering.

Now wikileaks releases everything, unredacted and unfiltered, and I find that disgusting.  That was the decision that really made it clear to me that they are not journalists, in any sense.

[arebelspy]

I think there's a clear difference in what is just dirty laundry, and stuff related to the public interest.

Ugh.  This is the whole issue behind the demise of Gawker, which published a sex tape starring a celebrity because just because he was a celebrity, and that made him newsworthy.  They argued that being famous means that disclosing your dirty laundry is in the public interest.  How do you feel about that?

That is not something that was in the public interest.

Nor is any private information of someone just because they're famous.

When they want to run our country, and have extraordinary power, yes, then it becomes relevant.  And only within the scope of their job.  A sex tape of Trump or Clinton wouldn't be relevant.  Potential corruption would.

Totally different things.

Responsible journalists should be used to vet and filter pertinent information.

Ugh again. This is the whole issue behind wikileaks.  At first, they were releasing documents that had been redacted by wikileaks employees to conceal the names and addresses and credit card numbers of innocent people.  There was no journalistic interest in exposing these people to identify theft for no reason, but everyone cried bloody murder about wiki trying to be "journalists".  The public wanted EVERYTHING, unredacted, even if that meant putting innocent people at risk, because anything short of a complete disclosure potentially constituted tampering.

Now wikileaks releases everything, unredacted and unfiltered, and I find that disgusting.  That was the decision that really made it clear to me that they are not journalists, in any sense.

Yes, this is a clear example of not using trusted journalists to vet and release the information.

Those journalists would, hopefully, decide a sex tape isn't material, but corruption is.

[radram]

I think there's a clear difference in what is just dirty laundry, and stuff related to the public interest.

Ugh.  This is the whole issue behind the demise of Gawker, which published a sex tape starring a celebrity because just because he was a celebrity, and that made him newsworthy.  They argued that being famous means that disclosing your dirty laundry is in the public interest.  How do you feel about that?

That is not something that was in the public interest.

Nor is any private information of someone just because they're famous.

When they want to run our country, and have extraordinary power, yes, then it becomes relevant.  And only within the scope of their job.  A sex tape of Trump or Clinton wouldn't be relevant.  Potential corruption would.

Totally different things.

Responsible journalists should be used to vet and filter pertinent information.

Ugh again. This is the whole issue behind wikileaks.  At first, they were releasing documents that had been redacted by wikileaks employees to conceal the names and addresses and credit card numbers of innocent people.  There was no journalistic interest in exposing these people to identify theft for no reason, but everyone cried bloody murder about wiki trying to be "journalists".  The public wanted EVERYTHING, unredacted, even if that meant putting innocent people at risk, because anything short of a complete disclosure potentially constituted tampering.

Now wikileaks releases everything, unredacted and unfiltered, and I find that disgusting.  That was the decision that really made it clear to me that they are not journalists, in any sense.

Yes, this is a clear example of not using trusted journalists to vet and release the information.

Those journalists would, hopefully, decide a sex tape isn't material, but corruption is.

I think what is happening is that potential for corruption is becoming the litmous test for vetting reasons.  As such, the sex tape is a POTENTIAL reason for corruption in the sense that it could be used as leverage for blackmail, so if there was such a tape of a political figure, it would be released in today's society. Same could be the case for anything that might LOOK LIKE a potential conflict of interest, as appears to be the reason for the recent Clinton emails. Under these guidelines, what would NOT qualify as a public interest.  Certainly todays news that Trumps private server was used to communicate with Russia would qualify, no?

Not saying I agree, just that is what I see. I can not imagine today's political figures feel they have any reasonable expectation of privacy.  Maybe someday.

[Northwestie]

Wiki is slowly becoming another tool to be manipulated.  Not impressed lately.

[arebelspy]

It amazes me how quickly those on the left that loved Wikileaks abandoned it, and how quickly those on the right that vilified it jumped up to support it, now that it was releasing information that hurt the left, rather than right.

Just goes to show, people don't want transparency, or free speech, or even truth.  They just want things that hurt the other guy, and not their party.

SAD.

[nereo]

It amazes me how quickly those on the left that loved Wikileaks abandoned it, and how quickly those on the right that vilified it jumped up to support it, now that it was releasing information that hurt the left, rather than right.

Just goes to show, people don't want transparency, or free speech, or even truth.  They just want things that hurt the other guy, and not their party.

SAD.

I support wikileaks (as well as investagative journalism) when it reveals illegal behavior.  As you said earlier, "vetted by journalists" should be a standard, but the reality is that just doesn't happen.
My concern is that things that i) aren't illegal and ii) not directly relevant and iii) private are being broadcast without any vetting.

It reminds me a bit of the controversy between government scientists and Lamar Smith focusing on climate change; tl/dr Smith demanded all records of personal communication. The public is entitled to the data, reports and conclusions, but not conversations assumed to be private where person A tells B he things C is being an ass.

[nereo]

Free_at_50 (and for anyone else):

Earlier we discussed whether an FBI investigation should be considered more or less severe than other investigations.
Following up, the FBI has begun an investigation on Trump's former campaign manager and ties to Russia.  The inquiry is not a criminal investigation at this point.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-making-inquiry-ex-trump-campaign-manager-s-foreign-ties-n675881

[Northwestie]

It amazes me how quickly those on the left that loved Wikileaks abandoned it, and how quickly those on the right that vilified it jumped up to support it, now that it was releasing information that hurt the left, rather than right.

Just goes to show, people don't want transparency, or free speech, or even truth.  They just want things that hurt the other guy, and not their party.

SAD.

I was never so hot on it from the get-go.  And the left assumption here is broadcasting pretty wide, eh?  But I think Russia playing them like a puppet recently is a good example of how, in the digital age, information is power, it can be accessed in illegal ways, and then used to leverage a specific position.  And the lack of censor of sensitive, personal information seems very self-destructive in the long-run.

[thd7t]

Ok rebs - what does this mean about a citizen running for office and his or her right to privacy? Is it too much for them to expect that they should be able to have frank, strategic and sometimes nasty conversations in private and have them remain private?
Can a public citizen still have private conversations?

I think there's a clear difference in what is just dirty laundry, and stuff related to the public interest.

Responsible journalists should be used to vet and filter pertinent information.

Interesting. Could a responsible journalist of say 100 years ago publish ANY of the Wikileaks items? An unverifiable source obtained by questionable means at best and most likely obtained through a cyber-attack on an american citizen. Or is it more that the responsible journalist must publish it ALL so as to remove any appearance of being biased? Somewhere in between?

A responsible journalist vets the documents. This means dogging officials until you get an answer, trying to find someone with direct knowledge who will affirm the validity of the documents (this may involve using anonymous sources known to the journalist, but not published). This is how responsible investigative journalism works, and it's what brings down corrupt administrations.

There is no responsible journalist in this scenario. No vetting sources or information. It's a dump and currently unverifiable. Further, the information was obtained illegally.

[Tyson]

morning all.  Let's get the day started with some fun.  As you know I believe the Clinton's are a criminal organization that involves collusion with various branches of our government including the DOJ.  We already know that Bill Clinton and the Attorney General Loretta Lynch are such good friends that they like to discuss their grandkids and golf on planes sitting on tarmacs. Regarding the latest email server investigation The DOJ says it will join in with the FBI in the process.  Peter Kadzik, the assistant ag, sent the letter to congress informing them.  Interestingly enough it appears that Peter is also friends with John Podesta (see couple emails below).  My question is, do any of these relationships concern you that the DOJ leadership may be a bit bias?   Gotta run out for a few hours but look forward to your insightful replies!

OK, here's my question re: Criminal Org that has infiltrated so many departments of government.  If they are such amazing criminals and have so much power, why are we seeing any kind of investigation into them at all?  Why have we EVER seen investigations against them?  Wouldn't their status of criminal masterminds with hidden, back end control protect them from being investigated in the first place? 

Or, are they like what the right said about Obama?  That he was the single greatest criminal mastermind in history, while simultaneously being the most inept President of all time.  I mean that's a pretty neat trick!

Maybe the Clintons are the second greatest criminal masterminds of all time, while at the same time being the very worst at covering up their crimes in all of history!

A third option is maybe the Right just hates them with a passion and is willing to continuously sling mud at them in the hopes that something sticks....

[Tyson]

I find it odd that some people who decry the government's legal use of metadata analysis (no email content) have no problem with foreign government's hacking personal email accounts of private citizens and then publishing them.  These same people have no problem reading private emails nor posting snippets without context.

As someone who falls into this viewpoint, I'll defend it:
There's a big difference between a government using its power against its citizens who have done nothing wrong, and the release of information about our potential leaders.

It's not hypocritical to want transparency in our government, but not forced transparency of all private citizens by their government.

So private citizens have a right to privacy but public officials don't?

[Chris22]

I find it odd that some people who decry the government's legal use of metadata analysis (no email content) have no problem with foreign government's hacking personal email accounts of private citizens and then publishing them.  These same people have no problem reading private emails nor posting snippets without context.

As someone who falls into this viewpoint, I'll defend it:
There's a big difference between a government using its power against its citizens who have done nothing wrong, and the release of information about our potential leaders.

It's not hypocritical to want transparency in our government, but not forced transparency of all private citizens by their government.

So private citizens have a right to privacy but public officials don't?

They do, but remember two critical facts: 1. No one made them commingle personal emails and professional ones, they did it for their own convenience, and 2. No one made them use a personal email account to email confidential documents to, nor did anyone make the one's husband use that same computer for emailing underage girls and attracting the notice of the FBI. 

[Tyson]

I agree that emails are fair game - if there's a search warrant.  And emails are useful in the context of an already existing investigation.  But just hacking people's emails and dumping them to the public is way f'ing wrong - there's no due process there at all.  Vetting or no vetting I don't care. 

I see it the same as physical letters in someone's house.  If there's a search warrant (or other probably cause), then fine go get them and use them.  But it's WRONG to break into their house, steal their letters and then make them public. 

[NoStacheOhio]

Ok rebs - what does this mean about a citizen running for office and his or her right to privacy? Is it too much for them to expect that they should be able to have frank, strategic and sometimes nasty conversations in private and have them remain private?
Can a public citizen still have private conversations?

I think there's a clear difference in what is just dirty laundry, and stuff related to the public interest.

Responsible journalists should be used to vet and filter pertinent information.

Interesting. Could a responsible journalist of say 100 years ago publish ANY of the Wikileaks items? An unverifiable source obtained by questionable means at best and most likely obtained through a cyber-attack on an american citizen. Or is it more that the responsible journalist must publish it ALL so as to remove any appearance of being biased? Somewhere in between?

A responsible journalist vets the documents. This means dogging officials until you get an answer, trying to find someone with direct knowledge who will affirm the validity of the documents (this may involve using anonymous sources known to the journalist, but not published). This is how responsible investigative journalism works, and it's what brings down corrupt administrations.

There is no responsible journalist in this scenario. No vetting sources or information. It's a dump and currently unverifiable. Further, the information was obtained illegally.

Correct. This was a hypothetical.

Edit: documents obtained illegally also have precedent for legitimate journalistic use. A journalist can't induce someone to break the law in obtaining documents, but there's precedent for publishing documents obtained illegally when publishing them is in the public interest. Whether or not the government (or a private entity) pursues them legally, and who wins ... is more gray.

[DoubleDown]

I agree that emails are fair game - if there's a search warrant.  And emails are useful in the context of an already existing investigation.  But just hacking people's emails and dumping them to the public is way f'ing wrong - there's no due process there at all.  Vetting or no vetting I don't care. 

I see it the same as physical letters in someone's house.  If there's a search warrant (or other probably cause), then fine go get them and use them.  But it's WRONG to break into their house, steal their letters and then make them public.

I'm with you. PARTICULARLY when they have been stolen by a known, hostile foreign agent (Russia).

I might even go so far to say that no reputable media organization should even cover it, as it gives the hackers and leakers exactly what they want. I don't know how you censor that or balance it with public interest, but I feel like mainstream media covering it is doing a big disservice to this country. To use your analogy about letters and search warrants, you might treat the hacked info like other illegally obtained information. For example, law enforcement can't use in a trial information gathered in an illegal search, but they could attempt to obtain a warrant to gather the same information legally. Then all the other stuff would be kept out of public purview, and only be released to the extent it became material to an actual prosecution.

[Chris22]

I'm with you. PARTICULARLY when they have been stolen by a known, hostile foreign agent (Russia).

I might even go so far to say that no reputable media organization should even cover it, as it gives the hackers and leakers exactly what they want.

How DARE they report on the illegal obtaining of evidence of our covering our illegal activities!!

[DoubleDown]

I'm with you. PARTICULARLY when they have been stolen by a known, hostile foreign agent (Russia).

I might even go so far to say that no reputable media organization should even cover it, as it gives the hackers and leakers exactly what they want.

How DARE they report on the illegal obtaining of evidence of our covering our illegal activities!!

Huh? I don't understand.

[Chris22]

I'm with you. PARTICULARLY when they have been stolen by a known, hostile foreign agent (Russia).

I might even go so far to say that no reputable media organization should even cover it, as it gives the hackers and leakers exactly what they want.

How DARE they report on the illegal obtaining of evidence of our covering our illegal activities!!

Huh? I don't understand.

I find it amusing that people doing illegal and/or immoral things stamp their feet and get upset when OTHER people expose them via illegal/immoral acts. 

[Tyson]

I'm with you. PARTICULARLY when they have been stolen by a known, hostile foreign agent (Russia).

I might even go so far to say that no reputable media organization should even cover it, as it gives the hackers and leakers exactly what they want.

How DARE they report on the illegal obtaining of evidence of our covering our illegal activities!!

Huh? I don't understand.

I find it amusing that people doing illegal and/or immoral things stamp their feet and get upset when OTHER people expose them via illegal/immoral acts.

For me its more about due process.  Its the same reason I oppose Stop and Frisk - it skirts due process.  You can't just go in and execute a search of people without due cause. 

It's also why I've always hated wikileaks.  What they do is wrong, regardless of who benefits or who gets hurt.  It's exactly this type of violation of privacy (ie, violation of property) that I'd expect strong support from the right, particularly Libertarian leaning folks.

[Chris22]

I'm with you. PARTICULARLY when they have been stolen by a known, hostile foreign agent (Russia).

I might even go so far to say that no reputable media organization should even cover it, as it gives the hackers and leakers exactly what they want.

How DARE they report on the illegal obtaining of evidence of our covering our illegal activities!!

Huh? I don't understand.

I find it amusing that people doing illegal and/or immoral things stamp their feet and get upset when OTHER people expose them via illegal/immoral acts.

For me its more about due process.  Its the same reason I oppose Stop and Frisk - it skirts due process.  You can't just go in and execute a search of people without due cause. 

It's also why I've always hated wikileaks.  What they do is wrong, regardless of who benefits or who gets hurt.  It's exactly this type of violation of privacy (ie, violation of property) that I'd expect strong support from the right, particularly Libertarian leaning folks.

Sure, but if corruption is so insipid and embedded by the powerful, sometimes you have to go outside the system. 

Would anyone on the left be up in arms if someone hacked Trump's emails and found out ________?  I doubt it.

[Tyson]

Trump has a right to privacy just like anyone else.  I want Trump to lose, but I'm not willing to endorse breaking the law to do that. 

[Kris]

Sure, but if corruption is so insipid and embedded by the powerful, sometimes you have to go outside the system. 

Would anyone on the left be up in arms if someone hacked Trump's emails and found out ________?  I doubt it.

I would. I agree with Tyort on this.

[Northwestie]

morning all.  Let's get the day started with some fun.  As you know I believe the Clinton's are a criminal organization that involves collusion with various branches of our government including the DOJ.  We already know that Bill Clinton and the Attorney General Loretta Lynch are such good friends that they like to discuss their grandkids and golf on planes sitting on tarmacs. Regarding the latest email server investigation The DOJ says it will join in with the FBI in the process.  Peter Kadzik, the assistant ag, sent the letter to congress informing them.  Interestingly enough it appears that Peter is also friends with John Podesta (see couple emails below).  My question is, do any of these relationships concern you that the DOJ leadership may be a bit bias?   Gotta run out for a few hours but look forward to your insightful replies!

Couple Wikileaks emails showing Kadzik and Podesta relationship:

Re: Dinner tomorrow night

From:john.podesta@gmail.com
To: peterkadzik@gmail.com
Date: 2016-01-13 01:39
Subject: Re: Dinner tomorrow night

Yes sorry. 7:30 at our place

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016, Peter Kadzik <peterkadzik@gmail.com> wrote:

> We on?



PJ & Amy


From:peterkadzik@gmail.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2015-04-08 00:06
Subject: PJ & Amy


John,
Hope all is well in Hillaryland. I mentioned to you previously that PJ,
who lives in NYC, is interested in working on the campaign. He would be a
great assistant for someone and he has great experience. OK if I have him
send you his resume? Amy had her hip surgery last week. Not a home run,
but recovery should be easier. Let's get together when you have some time
in DC
Peter

The attorney general is a political appointee of President Obama.  You could argue that every presidential administration in history is a massive criminal conspiracy racket as there are thousands of political appointees in every administration.

So the shocking news here is that folks with several decades of government experience know each other from the past, have dinner together, and send resumes of young qualified staff to one another.  Oh the horror.

[nereo]

Sure, but if corruption is so insipid and embedded by the powerful, sometimes you have to go outside the system.

Two problems I have with this.
First, this is an "ends-justifies-the-means" approach, which refutes the laws we say we are trying to uphold, all in the name of fighting corruption.

Second, I'm far from convinced that corruption in the United States is insipid and embedded. I think we've lost perspective on this. Investigations and evidence of wrong-doing and conflicts of interest aren't a symptom of a system that's inherently corrupt, but rather that people are naturally flawed idiots that cheat and lie when given power, but the system eventually catches them.
Historically, both the quantity and magnitude of political scandals seems rather tame compared to truly corrupt systems, where political figures would dissapear in the middle of the night, opposition leaders would actually get jailed for vague charges like "being unpatriotic" and it was impossible for many to vote, period. Systems like Italy under MUssolini, McCartheyism, present day North Korea and China.

Just my 2¢

[Northwestie]

That summary is way to common-sensed and balanced to get any traction.

[hoping2retire35]

 Drain the Swamp.

I hate that hashtag, but for non-political reasons (or at least reasons not pertaining to this election).
Swamps shouldn't be drained; they're biological hot spots and they do very important things for us and for the environment. Draining swamps was one of those progressive and ill-conceived notions of the 19th century that wound up wreaking havoc on our ecosystems that we're still paying for today.

It's like #HarpoonTheWhales or #ClearcutTheForest.

Sooo... DTS is actually a pretty spot on phrase, then. Take decisive action on something perceived to be a problem without understanding the underlying functionality and repercussions. I guess the alternate would be: There is a swamp which is non-arable land, hard to walk across and breeds  mosquitoes. We should develop a multi-part approach to a) identify alternate arable land for agriculture, b) identify a transit corridor and design a compatible structure to accommodate swamp (wetland) function, and c) develop a targeted mosquito mitigation strategy. But goddam, that level of complexity just doesn't roll of the tongue as well, does it?

A jobs program for K street?

[hoping2retire35]

It amazes me how quickly those on the left that loved Wikileaks abandoned it, and how quickly those on the right that vilified it jumped up to support it, now that it was releasing information that hurt the left, rather than right.

Just goes to show, people don't want transparency, or free speech, or even truth.  They just want things that hurt the other guy, and not their party.

SAD.

I agree and try to avoid this myself. One week I think the ACLU is doing great stuff, but next week; 'Nooo, ACLU, how could you?'

I voted monday absentee (working) for Johnson/Weld. HANDS. WASHED.

Disclaimer; I live in a non swing state so I can do that with a clearer conscience than most. hehe

[nereo]

Disclaimer; I live in a non swing state so I can do that with a clearer conscience than most. hehe

"Upcountry Carolina - isn't that a swing state?  Or are you in the Palmetto state?