|
Post by 2018 on Apr 7, 2016 11:27:33 GMT -5
Bernie Sanders >>Introduced the “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act,” which would break up the big banks?//Led the fight in 1999 defending Glass-Steagall -is a co-sponsor of the Elizabeth Warren/John McCain bill to reinstate those provisions.//Sponsored an amendment calling for an audit the Federal Reserve. berniesanders.com/issues/reforming-wall-street/www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-06/blast-past-–-hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-panamaBlast From the Past – Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders on PanamaSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 04/06/2016 21:31 -0400 ZEROHEDGE Unlike most politicians, Bernie Sanders becomes increasingly impressive the more you learn about him. Forget for a moment whether you think the tax dodging strategies popularized by the Panama Papers are ethical or not, it’s important to note that Bernie Sanders publicly warned about an expansion in such behavior all the way back in 2011. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama pushed for legislation that made such controversial strategies easier, under the guise of “free trade” with Panama. First, here’s what Senator Sanders had to say on the matter in 2011: The man’s prescience is remarkable. As his votes against the Patriot Act, Iraq War and banker bailouts demonstrate, Bernie Sanders has been on the right side of history on all the major issues of the 21st century. In contrast, Hillary Clinton has been on the wrong side of history on pretty much everything.For some additional insight on the Panama situation, let’s turn to the International Business Times: Years before more than a hundred media outlets around the world released stories Sunday exposing a massive network of global tax evasion detailed in the Panama Papers, U.S. President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed for a Bush administration-negotiated free trade agreement that watchdogs warned would only make the situation worse. Soon after taking office in 2009, Obama and his secretary of state — who is currently the Democratic presidential front-runner — began pushing for the passage of stalled free trade agreements (FTAs) with Panama, Colombia and South Korea that opponents said would make it more difficult to crack down on Panama’s very low income tax rate, banking secrecy laws and history of noncooperation with foreign partners. Even while Obama championed his commitment to raise taxes on the wealthy, he pursued and eventually signed the Panama agreement in 2011. Upon Congress ratifying the pact, Clinton issued a statement lauding the agreement, saying it and other deals with Colombia and South Korea “will make it easier for American companies to sell their products.” She added: “The Obama administration is constantly working to deepen our economic engagement throughout the world, and these agreements are an example of that commitment.” Critics, however, said the pact would make it easier for rich Americans and corporations to set up offshore corporations and bank accounts and avoid paying many taxes altogether. “The FTA would undermine existing U.S. policy tools against tax haven activity,” warned consumer watchdog group Public Citizen at the time, saying the agreement would encourage corporations to thwart any U.S. efforts to combat financial secrecy. The group also noted that U.S. government contractors, as well as major financial firms supported by taxpayer bailouts, stood to gain from the trade deal’s provisions that could make it harder to crack down on financial secrecy. Despite the warnings from watchdog groups, some Democratic lawmakers urged the Obama administration to aggressively push for the Panama agreement. According to a 2009 email sent to Clinton by her top State Department aide, high-ranking then-Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., was pushing for passage of the Panama and Colombia free trade pacts, and Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., said “the president had to lend his star power to pushing them through.” Obama ultimately did just that, hosting Panama’s president at a 2011 Oval Office event touting the proposed trade pact. Beyond once again illuminating stark differences between Hillary and Bernie, this episode also demonstrates how dishonest politicians like Obama and Clinton frequently use “free trade” language to push forward crony legislation that has little to do with trade. You’ve been warned.
|
|
|
Post by portrush on Apr 7, 2016 14:25:12 GMT -5
This thread is dedicated to Political posts regarding the Election and other political issues.
pr
|
|
|
Post by 3bid on Apr 12, 2016 12:33:04 GMT -5
‘Americans not buying democratic mask of US elections anymore’
Published time: 12 Apr, 2016
Video
Transcript: The Democracy Spring protest in Washington, DC is a sign that Americans are simply fed up with the current election process, which has led to an oligarchy oriented at a “small cabal of elitists”, Curtis Ellis, executive director of American Jobs Alliance told RT.
Some 400 arrests were made after the Democracy Spring march and sit-in at the US Capitol building on Monday. The demonstrators slammed the current election system, the massive influence of money in politics, and the rise of inequality.
RT: Why has the 2016 presidential election caused so many controversies and protests around the country? Curtis Ellis: The American people have had enough. I could say they have finally woken up. They’re aware, they’re not buying any lies anymore. They’re aware there’s an oligarchy that’s ruling this country, whether it’s a Democratic Party or the Republican Party, and they are not falling for it any longer.
You see, in both parties you have Donald Trump running away with the nomination because he’s saying: ‘I can’t be bought. All of the politicians are paid for by lobbyists.’ Bernie Sanders is saying the same thing on the Democratic side: ‘Hillary Clinton is paid off by Goldman Sachs, the international bankers that run Wall Street and the City of London.’ David Cameron is under fire for his Panama Papers’ secret bank accounts.
Everybody is very well aware of the fact that these politicians have a mask of democracy, but they’re really working for a small cabal of elitists that have nothing to do with the American people.
RT: Is there a realistic chance that the protesters’ demands of electoral reform will actually be met?
CE: Probably not in these election cycle, but as John F. Kennedy says when peaceful revolution becomes impossible, violent evolution becomes inevitable. If the oligarchs at the top of the Democratic Party and at the top of the Republican Party manage to quash the assurgent candidacies of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, I just say ‘Katy, bar the door.’
We can only imagine what will happen in the next election cycle because people aren’t buying it anymore. They’re well aware that the huge mega-corporations that operate on a global scale have corrupted the political system.
RT: Should we expect more protests like this to come?
CE: Well, absolutely. Look at what just happened in Colorado over the weekend. The Republican Party did away with popular voting and assigned all of the delegates to Ted Cruz.
A million Republicans in the State of Colorado are quitting the party, you have people burning their registrations the way people burned their draft-card registrations in the 1960s. We’re going to see plenty more protests.
RT: Why did the national media or much of the national media outlets choose to ignore the protests?
CE: Well, you see, the national media outlets, the corporate media, are owned by the same people that are buying the politicians. Donald Trump is in a unique position and that he has just great ratings, delivers such great ratings that the media can’t ignore him even though he is delivering a message that’s antithetical to their grip-on power.
Bernie Sanders has managed to pull in huge crowds, so that they tried to ignore him but they no longer could, especially when his message dovetails so neatly with Donald Trump. But they’d rather ignore all this and keep the people try to pull the wool over everybody’s eyes.
.............
www.rt.com/op-edge/339269-us-elections-protests-capitol/
|
|
|
Post by 3bid on Apr 12, 2016 14:12:45 GMT -5
Arrests made as hundreds of elderly Americans protest at 2nd ‘Democracy Spring’ sit-in Octogenarians being arrested for #DemocracySpring! If they can stand up against this corruption, we all can.
12 Apr, 2016
Hundreds of Americans, many of whom are elderly, marched in support of political reform in Washington, DC, taking part in a sit-in and risking arrest as they pushed for fairer elections. Already, multiple arrests have been made, according to reports from those on the ground near the demonstrations.
According to RT's correspondents, police have started releasing some of the protesters.
The sit-in comes one day after more than 400 people were arrested for participating in what has been been termed the “Democracy Spring” movement. The organization has planned for 10 days of demonstrations and mass sit-ins at the US capitol, with day two highlighting efforts from older Americans who want to see change.
“As ‘elders’ we have a moral imperative to care for and speak for future generations,” the Democracy Spring website reads. “We aim to use our wisdom and life experience to guide our actions, and stand together to create our legacy and reclaim our democracy.”
“Every voice is needed to speak up and say what we know is true – that a thriving and just democracy is the path towards a sustainable world for all children, for all life.”
As protesters marched on the US capitol, many elderly Americans held signs and chanted slogans such as: "Democracy is not for sale, [we're] not too old to go to jail.”
“I’m not dead yet; I care deeply; I vote,” read another sign held by a demonstrator.
Social media users have reported seeing dozens of police officers out to keep an eye on the protesters and make arrests.
As part of its movement, Democracy Spring is pushing lawmakers to pass legislation that would boost the power of small campaign contributions, offer public funding for political candidates, and update the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in order to protect minority and lower-income voters at the polls.
The group is also calling for a constitutional amendment that would essentially overturn Supreme Court rulings giving corporations the ability to freely spend in elections. The amendment would end “the big money dominance of our elections and allows for Congress and the States to set overall limits on campaign spending, including prohibitions on corporate and union spending in the political process.” ........
www.rt.com/usa/339363-democracy-spring-protest-elders-arrests/
|
|
|
Post by 3bid on Apr 13, 2016 8:40:42 GMT -5
'US political parties are history'
12 Apr, 2016 | RT
We have the wrong people in office, Democrats and Republicans alike are controlled by big money, some say the ‘powers to be,’ Christina Tobin, founder and chair of The Free and Equal Elections Foundation, told RT. Over 400 arrests were made at the US Capitol building in Washington after staging a mass sit-in, called Democracy Spring, to demand electoral reform.
RT: Why has this year's presidential election process been so controversial and caused so many protests around the US?
Christina Tobin: I think it is because we have the wrong people in office, Democrats and Republicans alike, that are controlled by big money, some say the ‘powers to be’. The time is more than ever now for an independent uprising to come about; independent candidates replacing these Democrats and Republicans alike on the congressional and local levels, which are far more important than the presidential levels. Parties are history – that is what is going to happen.
RT: Do you think the government might take any action to meet the protesters' demands?
CT: No way, because the government doesn’t represent us currently. It represents the money, the powers to be. Donald Trump couldn’t have said it any better today: “The election system is rigged.” I think it is wonderful that people are coming together, but it is time to come together to bring about solutions and The Free and Equal Elections Foundation - we have already been in touch with Democracy Spring to represent what the US is about. It is time for an umbrella group to bring everybody together and that is what The Free and Equal Elections Foundation is all about. Currently the primary process of a rigged system - I’ve been in this industry for almost 20 years… and I’ve seen firsthand the corruption of our electoral system. And Mr. Trump, Mr. Sanders, all those wonderful organizations out there, it’s time to come together for a greater cause than just one person or one organization.
RT: While such major protest takes place, why are national media outlets in the US choosing to ignore the Capitol protests?
CT: The mainstream media is part of the overall problem from the media to Hollywood, to the two-party system, to the closed presidential debates. The Commission on Presidential Debates is run by the former chair of the Republican and Democratic Party. And you better believe the parties would rather crash the party I feel, than let someone like Trump or Sanders takeover. So the media is part of the problem here in the US – they follow the money, as well as other things I’ve mentioned.
So it’s time for again a movement, solution based, positive energy bringing the children, the mothers, the indigenous leaders, the history together and to essentially inspire a movement of people to vote, to run for office targeting those local congressional races. More voices, more choices! That is our slogan...
........................
www.rt.com/op-edge/339314-us-uprising-democracy-spring/
|
|
|
Post by vulcanized crawler on Apr 13, 2016 11:02:11 GMT -5
colorado republican party is stupid. this kind of ''crap'' doesnt belong. burn that registration card, burn baby burn
|
|
|
Post by 2018 on Apr 19, 2016 13:43:57 GMT -5
www.collective-evolution.com/2016/04/19/voting-is-rigged-used-to-pacify-the-public-says-three-time-us-presidential-candidate-ron-paul/‘Voting Is Rigged & Used To Pacify The Public’ Says Three-Time US Presidential Candidate Ron Paul“This is the way the system works, it’s a rotten system, and I see elections as so much of a charade. So much deceit goes on. . . . whether it’s a Republican or a Democrat president, the people who want to keep the status quo seems to have their finger in the pot and can control things. They just get so nervous so, if they have an independent thinker out there, whether it’s Sanders, or Trump, or Ron Paul, they’re going to be very desperate to try to change things. . . . More people are discovering that the system is all rigged, and that voting is just pacification for the voters and it really doesn’t count.” Above are the words of Dr. Ron Paul, three-time presidential candidate and a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Similar to Bernie Sanders, Dr. Paul attracted significant attention while he was in the running, appealing to the intellect of the masses and helping to wake people up to the realities of the U.S. electoral system.U.S. presidential elections are rigged. This is the truth that he, and Sanders, and so many others, hope to make clear. Voting only provides the illusion of democracy, it does not actually serve democracy. In the video below, Dr. Paul goes on to describe how the electoral process has become a giant charade, meant to entertain rather facilitate democracy. He also argues that who exactly is chosen for president is irrelevant, because corporate interests will always prevent them from effecting real change. In a recent debate with Hilary Clinton, Bernie Sanders made the same arguments, saying that “no matter who is elected to be president, that person . . . will not be able to succeed because the power of corporate America, the power of Wall Street, (and) the power of campaign donors is so great that no president alone can stand up to them.” (source) It is an uncomfortable truth, as Bernie himself admits, but it is a reality we must face. And hearing this for the first time can be jarring, to be sure. We’ve been told that the world operates in a specific way, that we decide who our political leaders will be, but as with anything in life, it’s important that we discover the truth for ourselves rather than trusting blindly the words of others. We have been programmed to believe everything we are told, and corporate media is not telling us the truth. Dr. Paul and Bernie Sanders are not the only major political figures to speak out about this issue. Various presidents and politicians have been saying this for decades. For example, Theodore Roosevelt, the 26 President of the United States, told the world that “behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.” He also stated that “presidents are selected, not elected.” Even the very first British MP, Benjamin Disraeli, warned us that “the world is governed by very different personages to what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.”and more .... open the link
|
|
|
Post by 2018 on Apr 26, 2016 10:42:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vulcanized crawler on Apr 26, 2016 11:47:22 GMT -5
if you're part of the acorn-express, y'll can vote in all of em
|
|
|
Post by 2018 on Apr 26, 2016 12:40:07 GMT -5
They keep changing polling places.. and also closing polling places.. people don't even know where to go. Link above will show you exactly where your polling place is.
|
|
|
Post by 2018 on Apr 26, 2016 12:54:14 GMT -5
You want to see a video on Election Fraud? this one focuses on Democratic side.. but probably happening on both sides.. HAVE YOU SEEN THIS: Chicago Board of Elections audits Chicago votes. In one precinct the actual tally was 56.7% in Bernie's favor. After count was manipulated by machine he lost with 47.5% of vote. A whopping 18.4% swing. (video) It gets interesting around the 24 minute mark. video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSNTauWPkTc&sns=emIn one example noted during video, 21 Bernie votes were erased and 49 Hillary votes added to audit tally in order to match machine count. In this one precinct, this change from the actual results accounted for nearly 20% of overall votes cast. The actual tally was 56.7% in Bernie's favor. After count was manipulated by machine he lost with 47.5% of vote. A whopping 18.4% swing. This lady doctor that is talking at 24 min mark is now going forward with a lawsuit..
|
|
|
Post by 2018 on Apr 26, 2016 12:57:22 GMT -5
The whole delegate and super-delegate thing was the parties on both sides assuring there is no 3rd party or surprise candidate ever able to take over.. the "establishment party choice". Its forked up.. never ever did the people realize that more then in these primaries. Voting machines themselves are easily manipulated.. its absolutely crazy what voters have stacked against them.. but even worse.. is that people don't even feel they should vote or that it will count.. so they don't vote. The system is so rigged" — this TV host ripped the Democratic Party for its superdelegates www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwYvW9xEuHc
|
|
|
Post by theotherside on Apr 26, 2016 19:04:14 GMT -5
If the system was truly rigged then Hillary would have walked away with the nomination long ago. The fact that Sanders is still in the race proves that it's for the most part an honest process. I'm sure corruption exists to some degree but not in great enough numbers to switch the nomination to a candidate that didn't legitimately win it.
|
|
|
Post by 3bid on Apr 28, 2016 15:04:38 GMT -5
Is Hillary Clinton Above the Law?
April 17, 2016
Exclusive: Secretary of State Clinton was harsh on subordinates who were careless with classified information, but those rules apparently weren’t for her, a troubling double standard, says ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.
By Ray McGovern
“Enough of the emails,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders in Brooklyn-ese, while turning to Secretary Hillary Clinton during their first debate on Oct. 13, 2015. Sanders won loud applause for what seemed a gentlemanly gesture in withholding criticism for her use of a private email server for classified information.
But when Sanders said “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your d*mn emails,” I had a flashback to a House hearing three decades ago on large liberties taken with the law during the Iran-Contra affair under President Ronald Reagan. Beginning his testimony, then-Secretary of State George Shultz made the mistake of saying, in effect, who cares about laws being violated: “The American people are tired of hearing about Iran-Contra.”
Rep. David Obey, D-Wisconsin, was quick to respond: “Mr. Secretary, I did not take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States until I got tired.”
Well, we intelligence professionals also took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. There was no “until we got tired” – or even “until we retired” in that oath. It has no expiration date. Congressman Obey’s persistence and tenacity offer a model for patriots.
It has been six months since Sanders’s magnanimous gesture let Clinton off the hook for playing fast and loose with laws passed to protect classified information. During subsequent debates, everything but the kitchen sink has been hurled at the candidates, but there has been little appetite for asking Secretary Clinton what she thought she was doing, and why she decided to ignore security safeguards. (The reason often given – because she liked her Blackberry so much – does not withstand close scrutiny.)
While “mainstream” media have largely avoided the issue, it did get mentioned during the March 9 debate in Miami. Longtime news anchor for Noticiero Univision, Jorge Ramos, asked Secretary Clinton whether she would quit the presidential race if she were indicted for putting classified information on her private email server. She replied: “Oh, for goodness sake, it’s not going to happen. I’m not even answering that question.”
But this is too important an issue to sweep under the rug. It is not only we veteran intelligence professionals who are alarmed at what appears, at best, to be Clinton’s carelessness and, at worst, her deliberate attempt to conduct her affairs in complete secrecy, avoiding the strictures of, for example, the Freedom of Information Act, which can give the people and historians access to public records in the future so they can understand how government decisions were made. So researchers who care about democracy care.
It is also the FBI that cares, and the National Security Agency, which is responsible for ensuring secure communications, cares. And so do all who may have sent a sensitive piece of intelligence to her that she, in turn, might have put on her unclassified system. If Americans at large were briefed on the potential national security implications, they too would care.
One of the distinct advantages of the collegial way we operate in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) is that when, as now, one of us needs input from tried and trusted specialists, it is immediately at hand. So, I consulted several of my colleagues with special knowledge of these matters.
A Severe Compromise
For technical commentary on this issue, I turned to a specialist VIPS colleague named William Binney, who worked for NSA for 36 years. Binney co-founded NSA’s SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) Automation Research Center, and retired from NSA as Technical Director. He said he shares my very strong feelings on the issue. He told me the following:
“The email issue with Secretary Clinton is one of the most severe compromises of security I have ever known. After all, if the Chinese, Russians and other hackers can penetrate the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) servers and take the records of over 21 million U.S. citizens that over the years have applied for security clearances, then penetrating Hillary Clinton’s private server would be a piece of cake. Such penetration would yield insight into decision making at the highest level of the U.S. government, including what might be revealed in emails with the President.
“This is worse that the compromise of predominantly lower-level data by Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning and gives insight into planning at the highest levels in Washington – something that even all the torrent of data exposed by Edward Snowden could not provide. Reports that Clinton instructed subordinates to delete the security classification line on sensitive reports and email them to her, suggests a total disregard for the need to protect classified information and arrogance in deeming herself above lawful regulations governing the handling such data.
“We might as well have had an in-place mole at the highest level of our government. The FBI/Department of Justice would have already indicted lesser officials for less. Certainly, Clinton is receiving special treatment. It is a safe guess that FBI investigators are seething over their inability, so far, to pursue the case against Hillary with the vigor it merits.
“The case of Gen. David Petraeus comes immediately to mind. There was mucho seething at the FBI, when Petraeus gave his mistress classified documents of extreme sensitivity, lied about it to FBI investigators, and was let off with a slap on the wrist.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Gen. Petraeus: Too Big to Jail.”]
Operational Perspective
With the aim of getting expert commentary from an operational perspective, I turned to Scott Ritter, who served on Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf’s staff during the first Gulf war, before he became chief U.N. weapons inspector for Iraq. Here’s what Ritter had to say:
“I can say that NSA/JSOC (and even U.N. teams such as the one I was running in Iraq) would LOVE for a foreign official at the secretary-of-state level to use a private server for official communications. One need simply to mimic a cell tower (the Stingray technology in vogue today would suffice) and you instantly have access to everything such an official does/says/types on a cell phone. That senior official would no longer have the unique identifiers and encryption that an official server would provide.
“By the way, it is no longer a secret that we targeted the unencrypted communications that Saddam Hussein and his closest advisers sent out, not just the encrypted ones. Any communications traffic analyst will tell you that simply reading the unclassified traffic provides a plethora of actionable intelligence – particularly since the communications intercepted are in real time.”
In the Field
So what can happen in the field – in combat areas and in places like Kabul – when regulations governing the handling of classified information are disregarded? For perspective on this, I turned to Matthew Hoh, Marine Captain in Iraq and later a senior State Department official in Afghanistan. He answered:
“Ordinary Americans need to know how serious this is. Just last week we witnessed one example of what could have happened when Secretary of State John Kerry was visiting Kabul and the Taliban tried to attack him with rockets. Whenever the President, Vice President, Secretary of State or Defense, Joint Chiefs Chairman, or a congressional delegation visits Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq, the planning and arrangements are secret. But this is the type of information that could be sent over Clinton’s personal email, hacked, and gotten a senior American official killed.
“Another example would be Clinton discussing information relating to intercepts of foreign leaders. It’s possible in her correspondence she could mention something regarding Putin, Cameron, Modi, et al. that we capture via SIGINT. That would not only be an embarrassment; it would blow that capability for such access (and squander the millions of dollars spent in creating it). Fortunately for the other world leaders, they don’t seem to have been as arrogant or dumb (or both of the above) in insisting on using non-secure communications.
“Was it not amazing that Clinton protégé, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, plotted the Feb. 22 coup in Ukraine with the U.S. Ambassador in Kiev on an insecure telephone! Wonder where Nuland got the idea that was all right.
“Only transmitting and sharing classified information via email through the secure email and internet system used by the U.S. government also prevents accidental transmission of secret information to people who should not receive secret information. It’s a closed system. Only those with the approved clearance and an authorized email account can receive the email. So you can’t accidentally type in the wrong name of a contact who is not trusted, is not a U.S. citizen, does not have a security clearance, etc. and send them an email with classified information.
“We’ve all done that with our email, type in the wrong name and send someone an email by accident. Or we’ve forwarded an email string with a chain of information somewhere down the body of the message that you didn’t want the recipient to see. By transmitting classified information via her personal email account Hilary Clinton could have very easily sent classified information to someone by accident. Of course, as everyone who uses email knows, once you send a message you have no control over where that message gets sent after you hit send. So, once she forwarded an email with classified information that information could be sent to anyone, anywhere in the world whether on purpose or on accident. That’s why you don’t transmit classified information outside the secure system.
“Another question: What information regarding her dealings outside of her official capacities may have been targeted? What I mean is besides U.S. government secrets that she possibly exposed were Clinton’s own secrets – perhaps a quid pro quo or two regarding foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation. Such information could be used against her as political blackmail. What information could have been captured by a foreign power that could be used if/when Hillary Clinton came to office as President to gain leverage over her?
“Undoubtedly, if she wins election, her first priority will be re-election. So, my concern is not just for information that she could have compromised as Secretary of State that would have harmed the U.S. from 2009-2013, but what information has been compromised that could be used against her as blackmail if she is in the Oval Office?”
Clinton’s Judgment
So whether Sen. Sanders is right or not – that “the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your d*mn emails” – Hillary Clinton’s carelessness and entitlement in brushing aside the lawful security rules that apply to other government officials is an issue that bears on whether she has the character and judgment to be President.
In December 2011, when then-Secretary of State Clinton was busy denouncing Pvt. Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning for leaking evidence of U.S. government wrongdoing, Clinton declared: “I think that in an age where so much information is flying through cyberspace, we all have to be aware of the fact that some information which is sensitive, which does affect the security of individuals and relationships, deserves to be protected and we will continue to take necessary steps to do so.”
For leaking mostly low-level classified information to the public so the people could know about illegal or questionable acts by the government – none of the data top secret, the level that some Clinton emails have now been stamped – Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison.
But it seems that the applicable legal standard — or double standard — is that the more sensitive the security breach and the higher the status of the offender the lighter the punishment. For instance, Gen. David Petraeus divulged top-secret/code-word information to his biographer/mistress and lied to the FBI about it, but received only a misdemeanor citation (a fine and probation but no jail time) for mishandling classified material.
If that pattern is followed – and since Secretary of State Clinton outranked Gen. Petraeus – she might well expect even more lenient treatment, but her behavior might be something that the American voters would want to consider before giving her a promotion to U.S. President.
......
comments:
consortiumnews.com/2016/04/17/is-hillary-clinton-above-the-law/
|
|
|
Post by 3bid on Apr 28, 2016 15:38:19 GMT -5
EXTRA! EXTRA! What New Yorkers need to know, BEFORE voting in primary on Tuesday, re key differences between Hillary and Bernie on foreign policy
The Real News Network video-ed Mark Crispin Miller, Scott Ritter and Ray at Judson Memorial Church at NYU, Sunday, April 17.
First available segment is Ray’s (44 minutes)
Uploaded on Apr 18, 2016
Ray McGovern, former Army Captain and CIA presidential briefer discusses the foreign policy of Clinton and Sanders
|
|