home

Thursday Open Thread

Our last open thread is full. Here's a new one, all topics welcome.

< ISIS Releases Video Outlining Its Structure | Bernie Sanders to Endorse Hillary on Tuesday >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Another day (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 02:15:41 PM EST
    another police killing

    God bless Elija Cummings for using his closing statement in that farcical hearing to address this issue.

    the patrolman was asian? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by linea on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 08:50:02 PM EST
    i heard about this incident on the rafio and feel it is just horrible and unfair and wrong that an accusation of racism was immediately leveled against the patrolman  i notice the people here are implying that too. i haven't heard a single fact that would make me inclined to (irresponsibly) accuse somebody of racism.

    we really dont have any facts. yet, it's MORE LIKELY than not that the patrolman reacted appropiately. because MOST police are responsible and justified in their actions and MOST of these incidences are ajudicated as legitimate. that's just the reality; histrionics on the radio and on this site notwithstanding.

    this moning, i had an encounter with the police and they were pleasant and nice and helpful. and there was even a very nice police-woman who chatted with me. that's the reality. for the most part, the police are professionals and they have a very tough job dealing with drunks and drug addicts and violent sociopaths. i'm glad they are here to help people. there are very few bad police officers. i just don't understand the vitriol some here spew at the police. it's like some weird ideology that functions outside rational thought. sorry, i don't mean to be harsh but that's how i feel.


    Parent

    It's more dangerous to be a garbage-collector (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by glanton on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:00:52 PM EST
    Than a police officer in the United States. They're the ones who knock.

    Just because they were sweet to you this morning makes it ok that they're knocking off black people I guess ?

    Parent

    they were sweet to me (none / 0) (#128)
    by linea on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:10:29 PM EST
    but there are no legions of rampaging racist zombie cops gunning down black people. it's just not true. there are like a million police in the usa and only the tinyest fraction are bad or irresponsible.

    Parent
    What you fail to acknowledge (none / 0) (#179)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 09:06:07 AM EST
    is all those so-called 'good' cops who defend, protect, accept and cover up for that "tinyest fraction."

    Parent
    I think your blind faith and acquiescence (none / 0) (#117)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 09:41:55 PM EST
    have their genesis in some realm somewhat outside of rational thought and need to be modified by considering that your experience isn't everyone else's experience.

    In my city in my lifetime I've seen a chief of police and his second in command get sent to prison after spending years using the evidence room as their personal piggy bank and medicine chest and for colluding with the local Costa Nostra A and B team; seen an aquaintaince beaten nearly to death by a drunken off duty cop after he tried to get the cop to stop beating another man and then watched the entire incident get completely buried even after a dozen witnesses came forward to testify against the cop; personally knew of a cop - my girlfriend's best friend's boyfriend - who dealt heroin and I'm sure he wasn't the only one -- where there's smoke there's fire..I could go on, but I think you get the point, or should get the point..

    Parent

    thank you for replying to my post {{smile}} (none / 0) (#121)
    by linea on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 09:57:40 PM EST
    i do appeciate your anecdotes and i do realize that my experiemces are anecdotes to you. but you dont really believe that most police deal heroin or that anything but the tinyest fraction of police are bad do you?

    Parent
    I'be seen enough of the bad (none / 0) (#125)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:03:38 PM EST
    to be nowhere near as cavalier and dismissive as you are about events that take place outside my  temperature controlled fishbowl.  

    Parent
    ah ha! (none / 0) (#132)
    by linea on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:14:33 PM EST
    but you admit that in your temperature controlled fishbowl the police are professional and polite? that your ACTUAL experience isn't the anxiety you express?

    Parent
    Actual experience.. (none / 0) (#133)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:16:54 PM EST
    I think someone's reading comprehension isn't quite what it could be.

    Parent
    oh (none / 0) (#141)
    by linea on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:30:24 PM EST
    im sorry!

    Parent
    Most I know are good cops (none / 0) (#143)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:37:34 PM EST
    BUT police officers have the awesome power to kill and arrest.   No one else can do that on the spot with society's authorization.

    So, we need make sure that when cops misbehave they face consequences.

    Parent

    yes (none / 0) (#145)
    by linea on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:41:13 PM EST
    i completely agree with you!!

    Parent
    I have three cops in my family (none / 0) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:03:01 PM EST
    I've mentioned it before.  One is a more or less well intentioned racist red neck.  One is a truly vile not at all well intentioned racist red neck.  And one is the lowest form of bipedal life.  He jokes about ways, like disabling dash cams, to brutalize citizens.  Most especially minority citizens.  He's quite proud of it.  He post pictures, blurred faces-he knows the law, of brutalized minoritys in his custody on his Facebook page.  Like other people post hunting trophies.

    Parent
    There's no evidence of racism (none / 0) (#119)
    by McBain on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 09:48:54 PM EST
    but people don't need evidence when emotion gets involved.  There was a fascinating debate on CNN today with Van Jones, Harry Houck and Paul Martin
    It's amazing and very entertaining listening to the lack of common sense.  What happened in the past isn't particularly relevant to these recent shootings.  What's even more ridiculous is some of the past incidents being brought up don't even support the racism narrative (Zimmerman/Martin).

    Houck did a great job of pointing out the absurdity of Jones and Martin arguments.  

    Parent

    In what parallel universe (none / 0) (#122)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 09:58:49 PM EST
    is it "appropriate" to take a man's life, traumatize a woman and  permanently terrify and psychologically scar a little girl over a routine traffic violation?

    Appropriately.

    Where are you from, North Korea?

    Parent

    Anyone who (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:24:43 PM EST
    ...spends any amount of time in Black neighborhoods where the law enforcement is primarily white, knows what happens.  Only universal video capability and viral media make it impossible to ignore.

    There are several on this forum who can't wait to spike the ball when a Black man gets shot by police.  If the victim didn't have it coming, well, CHICAGO!  Reason reason and ALL lives matter even though police don't kill nearly as many non-threatening white guys.

    Parent

    Some place (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:09:22 PM EST
    Way whiter I'm thinkin

    Parent
    But every bit as cowed and compliant (none / 0) (#130)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:13:58 PM EST
    i think that's the wrong word (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by linea on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:28:18 PM EST
    im not cowed. cowed means: to cause (someone) to submit to one's wishes by intimidation.

    everbody is forgetting the guy had a gun. im waiting to read the police officer's report. maybe we all should?

    i realize that carrying guns is really popular and a big political issue but i would imagine an extra level of (compliance?) with police should be observed by those (mostly males) who feel compelled to go about their day with loaded pistols in their pockets. or am i wrong?

    Parent

    It's easy to be compliant (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:18:46 PM EST
    Until it's your demographic in the sights.

    Parent
    I don't care if the cop was an Eskimo. (none / 0) (#148)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:53:22 PM EST
    You don't pull someone over for a broken tail light, and then freak out and shoot him to death after he informs you that he's reaching for his wallet to produce his driver's license per your request.

    I'm glad that you had a pleasant encounter with the police this morning. And I agree with you that most police are good people. But those are silly reasons to summarily dismiss what's clearly been happening in these various communities as nothing more than histrionics on the part of a few activists.

    According to the F.B.I.'s Supplementary Homicide Report, 31.8% of people shot by the police are African-American, a disproportionate number given that they comprise only 13.2% of the general population.

    A recent study by Central Connecticut State University (2014), which examined 360,000 traffic stops in the state over an 8-month period,  found that while African Americans accounted for 8% of the state's population, they accounted for about 14% of all traffic stops. They were also twice as likely as white people to be pulled over and searched for contraband (drugs), even though 77% of all contraband seized in the state were from white drivers.

    A similar study in neighboring Rhode Island pretty much found the same thing. And in North Carolina, a recent study found that black drivers are 77% more likely to be searched than white drivers.

    That sort of data is unequivocal, and very strongly suggests that (a) police generally employ a much lower threshold for suspicion for black people than they do for whites; and (b) the underlying issue here is the propensity of police to engage in racial profiling, even though in a state like Connecticut, the practice is expressly prohibited by law.

    And if you can't grasp that obvious problem, then you either can't see the forest for the trees or are unwilling to face facts.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    i dont want you make you mad at me (none / 0) (#149)
    by linea on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 11:00:16 PM EST
    but at this point arent you are simply providing a fanciful scenario? i dont believe the officer's report is available yet. true?

    Parent
    You love to play numbers games (none / 0) (#192)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 10:22:46 AM EST
    According to the F.B.I.'s Supplementary Homicide Report, 31.8% of people shot by the police are African-American, a disproportionate number given that they comprise only 13.2% of the general population.

    That sounds bad but it tracks closely with the total numbers. Per the FBI black's commit 28% of the crimes. The sad thing about this is that many of the crimes are drug related and would be eliminated if we had a rational drug policy.

    They were also twice as likely as white people to be pulled over and searched for contraband (drugs), even though 77% of all contraband seized in the state were from white drivers.

    Looking at it another way, per the study you quote, 8% of the population had 23% of the contraband seized. Do you think that leads to:

    that while African Americans accounted for 8% of the state's population, they accounted for about 14% of all traffic stops.

    If you really want to live by statistics, why only 14%?

    FBI

    Police are human. They are the product of what is happening around them.

    Parent

    Maybe we should start (none / 0) (#194)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 10:27:44 AM EST
    And the drug traffic is poverty (none / 0) (#203)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 10:42:59 AM EST
    and hopelessness related. Which is an issue that the libertarian right doesn't want to constructively address other than to claim that it's a character and culture issue.

     

    Parent

    Capital punishment (none / 0) (#4)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 02:25:05 PM EST
    for a busted taillight.

    And with a child in the car, no less.

    Of course the spin and damage control has probably already kicked into high gear and we'll be hearing all about the victim's threatening behavior and past criminal record.

    Parent

    According to one source (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 03:19:38 PM EST
    his past "criminal" behavior is all traffic stops:

     

    Records show Castile had been pulled over and charged 31 times since 2002 for traffic-related misdemeanors. None of the cases were felonies and none of the charges were for violent or serious crimes.

    Which certainly supports the contention that was raised in Ferguson, etc., that local gvts exploit black/poor residents through the traffic court system.

    Parent

    Pretty tough to accmulate (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 04:43:32 PM EST
    misdemeanors for trafffic violations. FTAs, driving w/p a license, DUI?  Will research.

    Parent
    Traffic tickets. Speeding. No insurance. (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 02:27:20 PM EST
    And apparrently a very threatening loud muffler.  Clearly a menace.

     But according to the woman in the video the tail light was not broken.

    Parent

    Lavish Diamond (none / 0) (#45)
    by Redbrow on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 05:59:56 PM EST
     can not be trusted as a reliable witness.

    She already contradicted her video testimony during her press statement today where she admitted that Castile did mention having a gun until he was already reaching for something and then she started yeliing at the officer.

    And now the sheriff denies the existence of a CCW permit for Castile as Lavish falsely claimed

    I will wair for more reliable evidence and facts before rushing to judgement.

    Parent

    You are right of course (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:03:17 PM EST
    It would be different if there was any evidence of a pattern of this kind of thing.

    Parent
    Almost every example (none / 0) (#49)
    by Redbrow on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:06:27 PM EST
    Of this alleged apttern falls aaprt.

    Trayvon Martin debunked
    Mike Brown debunked
    Freddie Gray debunked

    If such a pattern actually exists why is it so hard to find a real example?


    Parent

    You've become your own best parody. (3.67 / 3) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:51:49 PM EST
     

    Parent
    God ol reliable donald (none / 0) (#90)
    by Redbrow on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 07:34:23 PM EST
    Always resorts to ad hominem attacks when unable to debate with facts and evidence.

    Parent
    I'll be happy to debate with facts ... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 09:20:15 PM EST
    ...when you start providing a few of them yourself. But since you tend to show up here armed with nothing but the breathless race-baiting hyperbole that you picked up on Fox News and AM squawk radio shows, simple ridicule of your nonsense more than suffices for now.

    Parent
    But still (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 09:07:42 PM EST
    Not the BEST parody

    Parent
    The only hint of racism (none / 0) (#56)
    by Redbrow on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:13:49 PM EST
    In this case so far is Lavish assuming the Asian officer is "Chinese".

    Reynolds began profiling the officer. "It was a Chinese police officer that shot him. He's Chinese, he's about five-five, five-six and a half, heavy set guy."

    And of course the media, pokiticians and low-info crowd assuming the Asian officer is white.

    Parent

    Source for CCW debunk (none / 0) (#75)
    by Redbrow on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:47:25 PM EST
    Ramsey Sheriff (MN)
    Ramsey Sheriff (MN) -  ‏@RamseySheriff

    @cameron_dehart Mr. Castile never applied for a permit to carry with our office. Therefore we did not issue his permit.
    12:20 PM - 7 Jul 2016

    The only wat for Castile to get a CCW permit would have been from the sheriff of the county he resides in.

    Will we find out if the gun was legally purchased any time soon?

    Parent

    Is this what you meant? (none / 0) (#178)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 08:36:46 AM EST
    she admitted that Castile did mention

    Or did you mean this?

    ...she admitted that Castile did not mention...

    And a link is always helpful.

    Parent

    And then (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 02:20:07 PM EST
    there's this

    Presented in a recent interview with a scenario, floating around the political ether, in which the presumptive Republican nominee proves all the naysayers wrong, beats Hillary Clinton and wins the presidency, only to forgo the office as the ultimate walk-off winner, Mr. Trump flashed a mischievous smile.

    "I'll let you know how I feel about it after it happens," he said, minutes before leaving his Trump Tower office to fly to a campaign rally in New Hampshire.

    It is, of course, entirely possible that Mr. Trump is playing coy to earn more news coverage. But the notion of the intensely competitive Mr. Trump's being more interested in winning the presidency than serving as president is not exactly a foreign concept to close observers of this presidential race.

    Early in the contest, his rivals, Republican operatives and many reporters questioned the seriousness of his candidacy. His knack for creating controversy out of thin air (this week's edition: the Star of David Twitter post) and his inclination toward self-destructive comments did not instill confidence in a political culture that values on-message discipline in its candidates.

    Those doubts dissipated after Mr. Trump vanquished his Republican opponents and locked up the nomination.

    "I've actually done very well," Mr. Trump said. "We beat 18 people, right?"

    But as the race has turned toward the general election and a majority of polls have shown Mr. Trump trailing Mrs. Clinton, speculation has again crept into political conversations in Washington, New York and elsewhere that Mr. Trump will seek an exit strategy before the election to avoid a humiliating loss.



    The convention is (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 02:22:37 PM EST
    Less that two weeks away.  He could very well get his exit strategy gift wrapped.

    Parent
    I cannot wait to watch (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 02:30:43 PM EST
    Even though I will have to stomach through all the garbage the other speakers will say.

    But on the bright side, Bernie is expected to endorse Hillary next week and even used her name today as he said in an interview with Bloomberg's Al Hunt:

    "We have got to do everything that we can to defeat Donald Trump and elect Hillary Clinton. I don't honestly know how we would survive four years of a Donald Trump as president."


    Parent
    Are there (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 02:35:01 PM EST
    even going to be any speakers? I'm sure there will be but there sure are a lot of people who are saying no when asked. The only thing that seems certain is that they will probably make Clint Eastwood speaking to the empty chair look sane.

    Parent
    I forsee an inordinate number (none / 0) (#10)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 02:42:56 PM EST
    of jocks and coaches and maybe a reality star or two.

    And possibly a juggling act and a soothsayer.

    Parent

    Are the Rockettes (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:05:13 PM EST
    Still a thing?  Could totally see some high kicking.

    Parent
    He could ask France's Marine Le Pen, ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:48:05 PM EST
    ... who has endorsed Der Trumpenführer. If nothing else, Mademoiselle Wingbat could help him firm up the support of her even crazier right-wing father.

    Parent
    Ted Cruz has, I believe, agreed (none / 0) (#13)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 03:16:28 PM EST
    to speak at the GOP convention. Jeff Sessions probably will speak. I have not heard of any governors who have agreed to speak yet.

    Newt will be happy to fill any unused speaking slots.

    Parent

    And so will Trump (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 03:41:08 PM EST
    He has said something about speaking every night of the convention and he probably will.

    Parent
    Don King (rumored) (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 03:42:19 PM EST
    Don King (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 03:58:07 PM EST
    the guy who once stomped another man to death.

    Parent
    And then, of course, there's ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:23:08 PM EST
    ... always the possibility of providing musical entertainment to fill the void.

    Parent
    Jim could speak at the convention (none / 0) (#26)
    by fishcamp on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 04:20:53 PM EST
    He might be the VP (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 04:23:19 PM EST
    Might be the only one who would take it

    Parent
    Go ahead and have your little chuckle (none / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 05:09:57 PM EST
    but you're all scared spitless that he'll accept.

    Parent
    You could be my court jester! (none / 0) (#181)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 09:10:49 AM EST
    As Groucho said (none / 0) (#180)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 09:09:22 AM EST
    I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.
    Groucho Marx

    ;-)


    Parent

    Scott Walker is a speaker (none / 0) (#147)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:48:27 PM EST
    at the convention, his office has announced.

    He is crazy craven to get a DC post, to get out of Wisconsin before the next gubernatorial election -- as Walker's favorables have dropped a lot, since he so embarrassed the state in his presidential run.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 02:32:30 PM EST
    I have noticed the uptick once again about stories where Donald does not make it out of the convention. Maybe he will quit himself. My understanding is under Citizen's United he gets to keep the 50 mil he raised.

    Parent
    Actual quote (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 02:40:45 PM EST
    "It's very possible I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money."

    - Donald J. Trump

    Parent

    Off of (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 02:48:44 PM EST
    white nationalists no less. LOL.

    Parent
    The VP list (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 03:03:40 PM EST
    ...seems nonexistent.  Like the list of speakers.

    I remember the days when the book report was due, and I hadn't read the book.  I still had to go to the class.  Trump still has to go to the convention, but what will he do there?

    It will be CUH-RAZEEE if the #neverTrump-ers get their way and deny him the nod.  It's not like anyone else has a campaign apparatus in place (and I'm not saying that The Donald does).  Who tries to pick up the pieces?

    The Donald is going to lose YUUUGE.  But if someone else takes his place, that candidate will lose even YUUUGER.

    They built this.  See if they can drive it.  It's the kind of problem I wish on my worst enemies, because I don't have to do anything except make the popcorn.

    Parent

    Ben Ginsberg (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 04:01:35 PM EST
    Not really given to frivolous predictions, this minute on MSNBC, is making this business of ousting Trump sound far from impossible.

    I rewound to get the quote right

    "At this piont, 11days out, to not have complete unity between elected officials and the nominee is unprecedented in the modern era for republicans.  So we are already exhibiting behavioral patterns unknown to modern society.  That is likely to continue.  And what is true is there will be the element of not knowing until there are actually votes at the rules committee."

    He said a lot more about how unpredictable things can be when the "spirit starts moving people" in something like a convention.


    Parent

    The Plot (none / 0) (#36)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 05:09:21 PM EST
    thickens
    Ted Cruz, Donald Trump's former chief rival for the GOP nomination, will speak at the Republican National Convention later this month, the Texas senator told reporters after the two met Thursday in Washington.

    This screenplay is getting rewritten hourly, the producers are sweating bullets and bleeding money.

    Parent

    Ted Cruz' convention speech (none / 0) (#152)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 11:04:21 PM EST
    Do you think he is going to just give a speech ... keep his name up-front, signal to his delegates that he is their leader, or be the only one left to take the VP slot?  If the latter, both halves of that "team" would have to be ever-ready to stab the other in the back at any moment.

    Parent
    Checking out some interior design (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by ExPatObserver on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 03:47:00 PM EST
    at some French "Palace" today.
    Here is what I decided on for my new dining room. I think it needs some Martha Stewart touches, but it will do.
    By the way, I saw the real Louis XIV rooms and I gotta tell you, Trump's imitations really are tacky. He should go for the Napoleon room look---like my dining room. It's just right for a titan of steaks and water.
    intimate dining room

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 04:05:59 PM EST
    Yes, that's perfect. And best of all, the room has a multipurpose layout, so whenever you're not entertaining 50 to 60 of your closest and most intimate friends, you can use it to intimidate those people in your life who displease you.

    Parent
    Frankie Jenkins (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 04:19:19 PM EST

    Mr. O'Keefe told us dinner was served by a uniformed waiter, a colored man.
    You sat at one end and he at the other, which he found unusual...
    ...because the table was so long.
    How was your mousse?
    Bring back memories of Willie O'Keefe?
    Not at all.
    But I do have...
    ...a lovely Chippendale dining table.
    I often have a friend sit at one end while I sit at the other.
    It's precisely the point of a long dining table.
    The splendor of the meal adds to its enjoyment.
    I imagine a uniformed waiter helps.
    It adds elegance, for which I confess...
    ...a weakness now and then.
    I call him Smedley.
    His real name's Frankie Jenkins, but it would be so uncouth during dinner...



    Parent
    Reminds me of a S. Africa story (none / 0) (#89)
    by ExPatObserver on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 07:34:00 PM EST
    A friend of mine was a professor and Dean in South Africa from over 20 years, from apartheid until the 2000's. He said that once when he wanted to treat himself and his wife to something really special, he bought a really expensive train ride
    across South Africa. He said the sign that you were in the top class was that the waiters and coachmen were----white.
    Ha.
    Paula Deen would not relate.

    Parent
    Remember when the far right was ... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 03:49:45 PM EST
    ... giddy with glee about the prospect of Romanian hacker "Guccifer" dropping the bomb on Hillary Clinton? (And in the interest of fairness and balance, there were also a quite a few Bernie bots'n'bros whose hearts were all aflutter about the great Guccifer slaying the Dragon Lady of Wall Street.)

    Well, another meme bites the dust.

    Oh, yeah (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 03:59:45 PM EST
    quite a few of our email trolls were shopping that one. LOL.

    Parent
    Name me just one. (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:15:55 PM EST
    That is so last week (none / 0) (#24)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 04:07:17 PM EST
    The email (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 04:27:19 PM EST
    thing probably has run its course. Of course in the bowels of places like Breitbart it won't ever end. They will go through everything looking for an eye that has been dotted wrong. After having wrong story and so much false information put out there about emails an so many people getting completely burned by the story I do have to wonder how many are going to even write about it.

    Parent
    IMO it's a mistake (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 04:48:05 PM EST
    To assume this is the property of Breitbart.  At least twice in the last two days, because I saw it-I have no idea how many other times or other channels he was on, on Chuch Todd, and Scarboroughs show they trotted out none other that Alberto Gonzales to "punditize" on Comey and his eghazi decisions without once mentioning in either case this inconvenience bit if history between the two that came out in another hearing in 2007

    In his testimony today, Comey spoke for the first time about:
    -- The high-speed pursuit that took place when Comey learned that Card and Gonzales were on their way to see Ashcroft at the hospital;
    -- The hospital meeting, in which the seriously ill Ashcroft "stunned" Comey by lifting "his head off the pillow and in very strong terms" rejecting Card and Gonzales' effort to have him reauthorize the spying program;
    -- Comey's admission that he believed he had "witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me";
    -- Andrew Card's subsequent "very upset" call to Comey, in which Card claimed that he and Gonzales had visited Ashcroft "just...to wish him well";
    -- The White House's eventual agreement to suspend the warrantless spying in the face of a threat of mass resignations, including from FBI Director Robert Mueller and Attorney General Ashcroft

    As has been noted in many places, it's clear the word has come down from on high to not only save Trump at the convention but to do everything they can to make the election a horse race.  Because as one blogger pointed out, if they don't people will be binge watching Sleepy Hollow instead of election coverage.

    Parent

    In many ways, the press has almost been (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 11:16:35 PM EST
    a party to the pursuit of the email stuff.  Some outlets almost hyperventilate about it.  Out of the blue or from the shower on my head this a.m., it struck me that--for the big-time press guys--it might come down to access issues, via FOIA and it general.  A few of the usuals have included specific references to FOIA in the past few days as they whine about Clinton's practice of keeping her distance from the press (e.g., I guess she doesn't play the cute nickname game with them that W used to do.)  Why would that be the be-all-&-end-all, I said to myself; and, the answer became obvious finally:  The leaks, the currying favor, the special relationships has been the life-blood of so many ... info, the more the better (FOIA) and everything else) has always been central to the political press ...and, HRC doesn't seem to indulge them as others have done.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 05:41:56 PM EST
    I was mostly talking about after today with the GOP wetting their pants. I knew that after Tuesday they would talk about it for longer.

    As far as the horse race, of course, you saw that in the primaries. They've done that for at least 8 years and maybe more. Every decrepit erroneous Q poll will be quoted as if it's God's own truth on the state of the race. Any poll that shows Hillary ahead by 20 points will be ignored.

    They'll go back to the old "Hillary is in trouble" story line using polls or they will find something else negative to say about Hillary.

    Parent

    Old (none / 0) (#31)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 04:54:12 PM EST
    scandals never die, they don't even fade away when it comes to the Clintons. However I think that this particular dead equine is becoming unpalatable for the American people. The media and the Republicans of course want the beatings to continue but endless blathering about emails without some kind of sexy smoking gun to offer up, it's going to be a hard sell to the public.

    Parent
    If they can in fact (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 05:00:10 PM EST
    Whip up another FBI investigation, as was made clear today would be attempted, about her lying under oath to congress you know the media will keep it alive.

    You know the "referral" is already on Comeys desk.


    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#41)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 05:42:17 PM EST
    saw that smirk on Chaffetz's's face, but I caught a hint of an eyeroll from Comey. I don't care what kind of straight shooting apolitical creature he is supposed to be, they virtually spit in his and the entire FBI's face today.

    I suspect this referral will end up on a roll in some basement bathroom, so to speak.

    Parent

    The GOP (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 05:47:01 PM EST
    knows it will go nowhere just like Ryan's stunt about security clearance. They know they are on their last legs, are cornered rats and have nothing to lose by screaming and throwing stuff at the wall.

    And so Chaffetz seems to think another bogus investigation for the FBI is more important than preventing another Orlando I guess.

    Parent

    The FBI can refuse to do so (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:44:05 PM EST
    Sure (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:49:04 PM EST
    They can
    That's why i said IF they can whip up another investigation.  I would think the information today about the allegedly (marked) classified emails might play into the decision.

    They sure did not make any friends in the FBI today.

    Parent

    It seems (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 07:06:34 PM EST
    that the whole attempting to use the FBI to chase a political opponent would fall under the abuse of power category. I mean that whole referral thing was so patently an abuse of power because it was like well, she didn't do anything wrong with the emails but now let's see if we can use the FBI to harass her again. Let's go after her and go after using whatever we can find, whatever agency we can use. The GOP likes to compare everything to Nixon but it seems the entire GOP has now become Nixon.

    Parent
    Wasn't this sort of misuse of the criminal (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Peter G on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 07:51:26 PM EST
    investigative agencies of the federal government one of the articles of impeachment against Nixon?

    Parent
    Yeah, yeah, yeah (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 08:01:53 PM EST
    Nixon ordered the CIA to block the FBI.  

    We sometimes forget just how criminal Nixon was.

    Parent

    As you noted in the previous Open Thread, ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 05:32:51 PM EST
    ... when the obvious absence of evidence to support one's contention instead becomes proof itself that such a contention is "probably" correct, we've plunged down the rabbit hole and entered that parallel universe where Lewis Carroll's Queen of Hearts reigns supreme.

    Parent
    Go (none / 0) (#55)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:13:20 PM EST
    ask Alice, when she's ten feet tall. Politics Owsley style, is there gas in the car?

    Parent
    Big deal (none / 0) (#43)
    by mm on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 05:51:31 PM EST
    The emails are already public, right on State Department website.  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:00:23 PM EST
    Devils advocate
    It's conceivable they have some of the thousands of deleted ones which might have nothing to do with legality and just be embarrassing for whatever reason.

    That said, and in spite of everything I said upthread, I thnk this is a nothing burger.  Whatever it is, coming from WikiLeaks by way of Putins hackers, no one is going to give an sh!t what is in this.   In fact I can see it actually helping Hillary.   Partly because of the source and partly because everyone is, like Bernie, Dick and tired of the damn emails.

    Another FBI investigation is another kind of sandwich.

    Parent

    I don't know (none / 0) (#50)
    by mm on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:07:23 PM EST
    Read the article, all he's doing is searching the SD site with certain key words

    Parent
    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:12:31 PM EST
    Didn't click.  So yeah, total meh.

    But it's been going around for a while that Putin has emails Hacked from Hillarys account (or accounts) and plans to release then thru WikiLeaks.  

    Parent

    If (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:11:17 PM EST
    Assange actually has anything and that's a big IF that would draw attention it would the ones about the NYT article about drones.

    Parent
    ... who's still hanging out in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. But I'm sure he'll leave eventually, once the statute of limitations in Sweden has run its course in 2020.

    It will end when you cease paying attention to the plaintive bleatings of these fools for scandal, whose own motives here have long been posted in 4-ft. high flashing neon letters on your front lawn, and start concerning yourself with issues that actually matter.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    as a legal thingy... (none / 0) (#110)
    by linea on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 09:19:09 PM EST
    i was suprised that the uk high court acquiesced to extradite assange for an incident that is not a crime in the uk.

    Parent
    From what I've read, ... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 11:19:21 PM EST
    ... Julian Assange's personal behavior with regards to his interactions with these two women in Sweden was at best boorish. But acting as though you believe yourself to be Heaven's gift to women is not necessarily criminal nor should it be criminalized. Such superficial narcissism is likely more reflective of poor breeding and upbringing, than it is of some deeply rooted psychosis.

    Further, Swedish authorities haven't charged him with anything. They want to question him about the complaint made against him. Personally, given that he's not the subject of an indictment in the U.S., I think he was silly to channel his inner drama queen and overreact. His present legal predicament is entirely of his own making.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Since late 2010 (none / 0) (#175)
    by Nemi on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 07:25:17 AM EST
    and to date, Julian Assange has been 'detained in his absence' decided by Stockholm District Court, 'with probable cause, suspected of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and illegal coercion'.

    As Julian Assange had at this point moved to England the Swedish Prosecutor decided to 'issue an international warrant for the arrest of Julian Assange, a European Arrest Warrant.' Assange escaped extradition to Sweden by seeking and receiving political asylum at the Ecuadorean embassy in London in 2012.

    Parent

    With police officers in the USA (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by glanton on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:54:51 PM EST
    We are past the point where we can assume good will and integrity on the part of an officer until proven otherwise.

    Not only is it heartbreaking for all the POC who must live in fear of this murderous pattern, but it shows just how dangerous it is to act like shit isn't broken in this country right now. Any presumption of moral high ground or of how we set some sort of an example for a free and peace loving society, such presumption and its narratives of exceptionalism are very dangerous and ought to be challenged at every turn.

    The presidents statement (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 07:13:44 PM EST
    i dissagree (none / 0) (#109)
    by linea on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 09:12:16 PM EST
    i'm not going to re-post my comment from above but i feel you are mistaken. i feel MOST people assume good will and integrity on the part of police officers. i certainly do. and i feel MOST police are professional and helpfull. i dont know where your vitriolic ant-police ideology comes from but i dont feel it's based on reality or your person experience.  that's how i feel.  


    Parent
    Thank you for not (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 09:24:05 PM EST
    Reposting your comment from above.  

    On an entirely different subject, and in an effort to condense comments....

    One of the silver linings of the crazy sh!t like we witnessed in congress today is reading the right wing insanity.  It's a guilty pleasure.

    "Dr" Jermor Corsi has a, well several but a really good one, piece about how Comey has a "long history of involvement in cases that end well for the Clintons".
    It's actually true.  He was Ken Starr's deputy.  Among other things.  It just strikes me as funny that the long history of failed attacks and overplayed hands in the rights pursuit of the Clintons should be described exactly that way.

    Then again "Dr" Corsi is the one who exposed the presidents secret gay life.

    Parent

    It also occurred to me (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 09:31:49 PM EST
    That maybe that weird statement about how awful and dishonest Hillary was but unfortunately still not enough to to indict might have a tiny bit to do with a bit of bitterness at all the times she "got away" over the years.

    Possible?

    Parent

    That article (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 09:44:25 PM EST
    is a virtual plethora of off the wall conspiracies. Lynch and Comey were both US attorneys in NY and worked on the HBSC case.

    You know maybe it should occur to the GOP that if they believe that Hillary is constantly "getting away" with something then perhaps the GOP is nothing but a bunch of incompetent morons.

    Parent

    {hugs} (none / 0) (#115)
    by linea on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 09:32:13 PM EST
    your right. it's true. the republican wonks (dunno if average republicans do this) certainly have a lot of angsty conspiracy theories and angsty non-issues that nobody but their small choir cares about. and they get really riled up about them too!

    Parent
    "republican wonks" (none / 0) (#127)
    by glanton on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:09:58 PM EST
    Are bad but what's worse is Dems who think everything is alright with just a little tweaking.

    Parent
    It never dawns (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 09:36:02 PM EST
    on them that maybe the Clintons are innocent of all the charges. If you're accused of something you are automatically guilty in the world of conservatives. So much for the rights of Americans in courts. What a scary thing it must be to have a conservative jury that will just do what the prosecutor tells them to do instead of look at evidence and facts.

    And yes all the exploding heads have been quite delicious.  

    Parent

    If you don't know where it comes from (none / 0) (#120)
    by glanton on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 09:56:44 PM EST
    Then your head is in the sand and so is everyone else's at this point.

    It's long past time that police face consequences for murdering people of color in the United States.

    Parent

    Many heads (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:13:46 PM EST
    In the sand or, well, other places.  But I do get the feeling a critical mass is being approached.

    Maybe it's wishful thinking.   Hayes interviewed a guy on his show tonight that has a book coming out called "They Can't Kill Us All"

    Truth in that

    Parent

    We are (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:46:55 PM EST
    all now living in an NRA created war zone where mass murders are becoming more prevalent every day.

    Yup, and it's on now (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 11:02:22 PM EST
    Streets full of guns, police officers attacking out of extreme predujice and fear, now retaliating snipers. It is on. The country is going to have to deal with this NRA insanity or the fabric of our civilized existence will be shredded.

    We are poised to win a great big Darwin award.

    Parent

    Crazy (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 11:20:48 PM EST
    That the guy in the pic with the assault rifle is being called a person of interest because TX is open carry.  So just because he showed up to a demonstration with an assault rifle just means he showed up to a demonstration with an assault rifle.

    As is his right.

    Parent

    Guess what (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 11:28:55 PM EST
    The guy in the photo they have been showing is NOT apparrently a shooter.

    Video is being circulated of him at street level when the shooting happened.

    Crazy.

    Parent

    which (none / 0) (#163)
    by coast on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 11:31:32 PM EST
    is why they called him a person of interest and not a suspect.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 11:37:17 PM EST
    Just a person of interest.  With an assault rifle.  At a street demonstration.

    Parent
    A F. A. (none / 0) (#191)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 10:16:52 AM EST
    is what he is.

    Parent
    You and I (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 06:13:30 AM EST
    see it up close and personal in the states we live in.

    Parent
    Last Saturday still has some open thread (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 01:42:16 PM EST
    But I find myself speechless.

    For those of you who screamed (1.00 / 1) (#185)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 09:30:03 AM EST
    No one here has ever suggested that (none / 0) (#187)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 09:47:58 AM EST
    overwrought people chanting in a crowd should be on the shortlist for VP of the United States.

    Parent
    New poll (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 04:01:06 PM EST
    out of California has Trump getting around 25% of the vote there.

    That number seems high n/t (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 04:58:03 PM EST
    The (none / 0) (#34)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 05:00:37 PM EST
    Biker(not your type) vote?

    Parent
    GOP leaders in D.C. need to be ... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 05:06:02 PM EST
    ... clear-eyed here and take an honest stock of what's happened to a once-dominant California GOP over the course of the last 25-30 years.

    Republican voters in the Golden State were rabidly xenophobic and homophobic long before it ever became really fashionable amongst their white brethren nationally. While flogging those memes undoubtedly bought CA Republicans some fleeting electoral advantages in the 1980s and '90s, they were oblivious to the potential long-term consequences that such race- and gay-baiting held for their party's viability, particularly as their own predominately white voter base aged in place and became increasingly self-absorbed.

    And so, having inexorably squandered their credibility with a younger, increasingly diverse and generally more tolerant state electorate, the self-marginalizing California GOP finally crashed and burned.

    California has long been a national bellwether. And that being the case, the future prospects for the GOP nationally could become quite dire in relatively short order, if they haven't already, unless the moderates can find a way to somehow ditch the right-wing know-nothings and find their way back toward the center. Unfortunately, as happened in California, they may have already passed the tipping point.

    It's no longer "Morning in America." It's now high noon, and the Republicans have run out of sunscreen.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Clinton and California (none / 0) (#69)
    by mogal on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:33:25 PM EST
    You made an excellent comparison, I just hope we do not have to endure an Arnold Schwarzenegger to have a Jerry Brown.

    Parent
    "Get over it."--Justice Antonin Scalia (none / 0) (#38)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 05:25:02 PM EST
    Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.
    --Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 12 December 2000

    To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.
    --FBI Director James Comey, 5 July 2016


    Which one (none / 0) (#44)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 05:51:34 PM EST
    is apples and which one is oranges?

    Parent
    So when does (none / 0) (#51)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:10:32 PM EST
    Madame Sec address Director Comey's evisceration of her carefully compiled year long explanation of the server and the e mails?
    That every thing she has claimed has been a bald faced lie?
    Or does she ever? Can she go 4 months without speaking to the press?


    Parent
    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:15:37 PM EST
    The GOP says Comey is a crook and a liar. So you can't have it both ways.

    After shopping so many lies for so long Trevor it's kind of funny to see you desperately spinning now, spinning, spinning.

    But I know the GOP sucks so you have to focus on Hillary. The GOP has already conceded the election.

    Parent

    So when (none / 0) (#61)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:18:28 PM EST
    Does Madame Sec apologize to the primary voters for lying to them,
    To the American public for deceiving them,
    And promise never ever to do it again,

    Lol

    Do not hold your breath

    Parent

    I guess (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:28:06 PM EST
    you didn't see today where Comey did not even realize that one of the things he said was wrong in his statement Tuesday and it was about sending classified information. She told the truth Trevor. The GOP is the one lying.

    You guys have become creepy stalker gang rapists at this point constantly chasing her and calling her names and acting like you won't be happy until she is raped and murdered. You can't let the fact that she was cleared sink in your head and you've become obsessed. It's perverted. You have no decency and no shame.

    Parent

    Shorter Trevor: (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:15:41 PM EST
    Here are some facts from today hearing (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:17:50 PM EST
    Haven't heard much about them but they are on my DVR and I can quote them word for word if necessary.

    Comey said there was three (3) emails with classified information.  

    Late in the hearing Cummings pointed out new information that Comey was unaware of the thise three emails in fact contained NO classified information.  They had been labeled incorrectly and the SD had said in the last day or so there was no classified information in the three (3) emails.

    Which means.  There was no classified emails.  

    So strap on your best tinfoil and tell us what she lied about.

    Parent

    Some important facrts (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 10:57:51 AM EST
    I gleaned from the "Emergency Hearing."

    Details on "unanimous" conclusion, no dissenting opinion of the FBI team: the team consisted of 15 to 20 plus others; all "real professionals"; reviewed tens of thousands of documents; an "all star team";  conducted the FBI interview last Saturday with Mrs. Clinton; Mrs. Clinton agreed to the interview, no subpoena, no obfuscation, not evasive, truthful, no lying, no willful intent.

    Comey "set aside" upclassified; the three emails were not marked according to DOS Manual, Comey agreed that the (C) could have been missed as it was  placed in the text, middle paragraph of email coming up the chain (not aware of DOS corrective response); Gucifer lied; did not know if hostile powers got information and the FBI has no way of knowing; the "extremely careless " admonition of the initial statement was softened and would have been more accurate, according to his own lights, as "careless" and "sometimes" extremely careless. The 110 emails out of the 30,000 of question were not marked confidential, but Comey says are classified(definition: knew or should have known they were classified) but not enough information to determine whether Mrs. Clinton thought they were classified.  

    My impression: Mrs. Clinton should not have used the server, even though one of a former president (which she admitted long ago); there was unintentional mishandling of information; Mrs. Clinton is an email user, but is not very technologically savvy: there is no such thing as a secure email at DOS or anywhere. Internet is designed for resiliency not security.Classified is a misnomer, if classified need to be encrypted. Comey's team made the correct conclusion; but his gratuitous commentary was overwrought. The circumstances and complexities leave much room for resolution of perceived contradictions. And, the Espionage Act of 1917 should be repealed.

    Parent

    Sigh (none / 0) (#63)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:24:36 PM EST
    That she used the server for convenience, she only uses 1 device
    She only had 1 server
    like in wipe the server? Her attorneys wiped and deleted classified e mails , not turned over to the State Department, to the extent that they were not retrievable
    That she never sent or received classified e mails on her server

    Comey was asked about such claims, which she also made publicly, in a pointed exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.

    "That's not true. ... There was classified material emailed," Comey said.

    On her claim that she used one device, Comey also said, "She used multiple devices."

    And on her claim that she turned over all work-related emails, he said, "No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned."

    Parent

    Maybe I can try typing more slowly (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:29:46 PM EST
    The Gowdy Dooty exchange was BEFORE Cummings explaining there was no classified information in the three emails.

    Also when asked about "mulitple devices" what he said was that over a period of time she used different devices.  It's already been reported she used the, one at a time.  So she used one device.

    But please continue.  You twist in the wind better than anybody.

    Parent

    Try reading more slowly (none / 0) (#70)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:37:23 PM EST
    More slowly. She sent and received hundred of classified e mails.
    H u n d r e d s.  Okay?

    There were 3 that were marked, MARKED classified.

    The State Department is claiming they marking were there inappropriately.

    Regardless of whether they were inappropriate or not, someone should have recognized that and not sent them via e mail.

    The hundreds containing classified information should have been recognized by anyone and NOT sent via e mail

    Parent

    No Trevor (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:43:35 PM EST
    there was no problem with her receiving classified information. You cannot control nor be responsible for what other people send you and the information was RETROACTIVELY classified in that case. The sending involved three emails that Comey said were classified at that time. They were mistakenly classified and Comey did not know that until today. Okay. Real slow for you: She never sent any classified information because that concerned three emails that were mistakenly classified. So there's nothing there. Classified email is supposed to have classified in the header. Those emails never had it and retroactively wrongly classified. You're all wrong about what went on.

    Parent
    NO NO and NO (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:46:53 PM EST
    You leave me speechless, you are clueless or just a blind sycophant.

    Her server was NOT AUTHORIZED for any e mail containing  CONTAINING classified information.

    And she forward on classified information to others. There were over 100 classified emails, BORN CLASSIFIED , not retroactive on her server, at least ones that they found and were not deleted.


    Parent

    Trevor (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:32:23 PM EST
    she did only have one server at a time. Comey was wrong in making it sound like she had multiple servers at the same time which was completely wrong. You keep accusing her of lying when all your information is completely wrong.

    Yes, we know the GOP sucks.

    Parent

    Multple devices (none / 0) (#81)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:58:10 PM EST
    Never more than at a time.   Many over several years, replacing an old one with a new one.  

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#64)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:27:12 PM EST
    Once again I ask,

    Just when is Madame Sec going to address the press and American public and apologize for her persistent lies during the course of the primary campaign, Were these lies perpetrated just to ensure her victory in the primary?

    How does she reply to the accusations of the Director of the FBI that everything she publically stated was false.

    Parent

    I watched the entire Comey hearing (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:59:50 PM EST
    You do not accurately state what Comey stated.

    Parent
    Trevor (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:14:21 PM EST
    you may as well start saying Madame President.

    Parent
    The (none / 0) (#67)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:32:03 PM EST
    art of war suggests that she will choose her own time and place, meanwhile the Republicans are offering plenty of cover with their ridiculous hearing today.
    Any halfway sane Republican knew that an indictment was an extreme long shot and Comey gave them the next best thing, quite(IMO a bit unethically over the top)the tongue lashing. Good news for Republicans......nah, they proceed to shoot the messenger.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:46:57 PM EST
    Comey gave Republicans the next best thing, he basically called Madame Sec  a liar, but felt he could not prosecute because there would be reasonable doubt as to whether Madame Sec intent, despite the fact the law did not require intent.

    That was the purpose of the hearing , to drill down on why, and Comey explained it, he re interpreted the law as he felt it should apply.

    And Comey was not attacked , they questioned his judgement in making that call, but overall, no, Comey did not get shot.

    I actually believe Madame Secretary will not have a news conference before the election. She most likely feels she can win without one. She will put out a statement (I would hope) sooner rather than later, but take no questions on the matter.
    No courage there, she should have taken the Christie approach early on, as was recommended, and answered all questions truthfully until the reporters ran out of questions, as Christie did.
    But then, she might not have won the primary????

    Parent

    No, Congressman Mika (none / 0) (#83)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 07:04:32 PM EST
    implied Comey was part of a conspiracy to cover for Hillary.

    In response, Comey said to Mika to "look me in the eye and listen to what I say," and went on to deny any collusion or interference.

    Mika was despicable.

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#94)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 07:54:37 PM EST
    are still attacking Comey, insisting he
    re interpreted the law as he felt it should apply.
    that's pure BS, also he absolutely did not call her a liar, he just said she was wrong, huge difference.

    If you look closely at the origin of this mess the  SD as an institution did not consider the emails classified(at least not the born classified type). Some in the Intel community thought otherwise, one more time, same as it ever was.

    Not surprisingly Comey ended up agreeing with the intel agencies, declaring that  Hillary and the SD were wrong about their assumptions, but if one is acting in good faith being wrong rarely rises to the level of criminality,  believing in your side of the story does not make you a liar.  

    Parent

    Wouldn't consider (none / 0) (#95)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 08:01:23 PM EST
    that an attack. It was worthy of a explanation as the law as written specifically excludes intent, correct? And he specifically stated he couldn't prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Why he felt intent was needed when it was not in the law deserved clarification.
    Okay, Comey when asked said Clintons testimony was true or not, Comey said it was not true

    Asked whether Clinton's testimony that she did not email "any classified material to anyone on my email" and "there is no classified material" was true, Comey responded, "No, there was classified material emailed."
    "Secretary Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?" Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, "She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state."
    Gowdy then asked whether it was true that Clinton, as she said, returned all work-related emails to the State Department.
    "No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned," Comey said.
    "Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account. Was that true?" Gowdy asked.
    "That's a harder one to answer," Comey responded. "We found traces of work-related emails in, on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or whether when a server changed out something happened to them, there is no doubt that the work-related emails that were removed electronically from the email system."
    Gowdy asked whether Clintons' lawyers read every one of her emails as she had said. Comey replied, "No."
    "In interest of time, because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through anymore of the false statements but I am going to ask you put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements, they are used for what?" Gowdy inquired
    .

    Parent
    The FBI reviewed (none / 0) (#97)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 08:10:41 PM EST
    more than 30,000 emails.  Of those about 100 in 52 emails chains were classified (but not marked classified.)

    Three emails had markings indicating they were classified.  But these not properly marked classified with such a designation in the header but merely had a "c" in the body of the email.  Comey stated it would have been reasonable given the improper labeling of the document to not realize it was marked classified.  And, those three were accidentally marked with a "c" and were not really classified at all.

    In terms of the 100 or so classified but unmarked classified emails, Comey shot down a question that asked if access to those emails would put agents in the field at risk.  He said they were not those kinds of emails, implying they were not really as sensitive as everyone is assuming.

    So a very small subset of emails out of tens of thousands were classified but not marked as such.   That does not look like intentional misconduct, and not even all that careless given how few of them exist relative to the total.

    Parent

    What the ? (none / 0) (#92)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 07:49:20 PM EST
    Not going away just yet

    What is John Kerry up to?

    Although Clinton's closest confidants have left the State Department, they could still face punishment. The most serious is the loss of security clearances, which could complicate her aides' hopes of securing top positions on her national security team if she becomes president.

    Share story

    The Associated Press
    WASHINGTON (AP) -- The State Department is reopening an internal investigation of possible mishandling of classified information by Hillary Clinton and top aides, officials told The Associated Press on Thursday.

    Although the former secretary of state's closest confidants have left the agency, they could still face punishment. The most serious is the loss of security clearances, which could complicate her aides' hopes of securing top positions on her national security team if she becomes president.



    Parent
    We can worry about that in (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 08:12:58 PM EST
    January after Hillary takes the oath of office.  See you then.

    Parent
    This is not (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 08:23:49 PM EST
    what Trevor would like it to be either. It sounds like they are going to go back through the classification status as they have already found three of them that were wrongly classified.

    Parent
    As president (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 08:17:10 PM EST
    She can also reinstate security clearances.  Don't know if she would, but she could.

    Parent
    The State Department (none / 0) (#188)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 09:50:34 AM EST
    inquiry was in process at an earlier point, but was temporarily halted so as not to interfere with the FBI inquiry.

    Parent
    Oh whatever! (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 08:24:04 PM EST
    It is important they review procedures and protocols but nobody is losing a security clearance over this. It's about restoring faith in the State Department properly handling classified information.

    You wingers...don't you ever get tired of setting your own hair on fire?

    Parent

    Apparently (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 08:26:14 PM EST
    not. But the bright side is they show us everyday why no one should vote for a Republican. The party has gone the rabbit hole of continuous conspiracy theories with crackpots running everything.

    It's been funny watching their heads explode though you have to admit.

    Parent

    I'm still waiting (none / 0) (#198)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 10:34:11 AM EST
    On when hearings are going to be held on certain Repiblican members of that same committee who publicly leaked (during hearings!) such classified things as: divulging the names of US governmemt informants, airport-security details, and infirmation from a sealed wiretap warrant.

    Parent
    Feh (none / 0) (#200)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 10:37:14 AM EST
    you're never going to see that happen. As we've seen time and again from our trolls they will lie and spin and excuse any behavior. Hillary told the truth and they can't accept that and Gowdy and the Republicans have lied and lied to them and they can't accept that. I think there's a name for their behavior but I just don't know quite what it is.

    Parent
    Bernie Sanders (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 06:57:20 PM EST
    Will endorse HRC next Tuesday in New Hampshire.

    Remember Lucy and the football? (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 07:06:12 PM EST
    Isn't Bernie still making demands?

    I'll believe when I see it.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 07:11:21 PM EST
    but time is pretty much out for Bernie. He knows if he doesn't endorse he gets left out in the cold, no conventions speech, nothing. So this might actually be true. We'll see.

    Parent
    Trump isn't requiring endorsements (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by ExPatObserver on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 07:39:58 PM EST
    for his speakers. Maybe Bernie can get a slot in Cleveland.

    Parent
    Will Hillary be there? (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 07:10:11 PM EST
    Yes, it's a joint appearance (none / 0) (#100)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 08:19:35 PM EST
    It was sort of a joke (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 08:31:01 PM EST
    Probably not a very good one.

    The part I like about this is that it happened the next day, that's when it was first announced they were in "talks", after he was booed by a bunch of democrats.

    I do not think that is coincidence

    Parent

    My reaction, too, Howdy (none / 0) (#151)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 11:02:50 PM EST
    as maybe being booed by his colleagues in Congress finally got through to Bernie.

    But does an endorsement mean suspending his campaign, or will he continue to split hairs?  It would be nice if he finally would concede and suspend, so that we-the-people can stop spending what is adding up to millions of bucks for Bernie to have an entourage, his Secret Service security.

    And the Secret Service, I read, really needs to free up those agents for the coming conventions. They usually are down to two nominees to cover at this point, and three is causing worry that the security coverage at the GOP convention could be "thin," if Bernie remains removed from reality.

    Parent

    Who knows who the snipers in Dallas were tonight (none / 0) (#154)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 11:12:13 PM EST
    They could be the KKK for all we know attempting to start a race war. But things just got a lot more dangerous in my book.

    Parent
    And what about (none / 0) (#177)
    by Nemi on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 07:53:22 AM EST
    his and his presidential campaign's plans for having a rally on the eve of July 24 simultaneously with the Democratic Convention? Would an endorsement mean that he'll then cancel that?

    Parent
    sad to say (none / 0) (#106)
    by linea on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 09:05:06 PM EST
    but bernie is over. there wasn't any bernie presence at the pride weekend in my total bernie neighborhood.  no bernie booth and no bernie t-shirts. there was a booth selling "bill for first lady" t-shirts and a people meandering wearing those t-shirts and an officiial hillary booth. but no bernie anything.

    Parent
    I hate it when the world (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 09:07:04 PM EST
    interrupts my game. Especially when I must leave and return to the retirement mansion to fix an electrical problem that, thankfully, my training and background had prepared me for.

    But I gotta tell ya. Watching Gowdy lead the FBI Director through itemizing six (6) of Hillary's falsehoods made my day.

    I love DVR.

    Haha (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 09:30:25 PM EST
    I love it when you're down to character assassination. You know it's the last resort of a loser.

    Parent
    In addition to Gowdy (none / 0) (#190)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 10:09:44 AM EST
    Another one of the excellent questioners was Rep Hurd from Texas, former CIA undercover officer.

    Parent
    One thing I know (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 10:26:29 AM EST
    19th century phrenologists would have a field day with that pecan-shaped skull of Gowdy's..

    Someone should give him a monacle and a top hat.

    Parent

    He did do (none / 0) (#195)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 10:29:35 AM EST
    A excellent job of walking Comey through intent, and Madame Sec's actions, as being proof of intent

    Parent
    There is (none / 0) (#197)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 10:33:45 AM EST
    no proof of intent and Comey admitted that much. Comey said there was "no intent".

    Why don't you guys just go ahead and smear Comey because at least that makes sense instead of trying to twist yourself into pretzels making a mockery out of the rule of law.

    Parent

    Do you watch (none / 0) (#201)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 10:39:26 AM EST
    The volume off and supply your own commentary?
    It certainly seems so.

    Comey said he couldn't PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt Madame Sec's intent. Although many disagree with that judgement.

    Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.

    You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also -- intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether

    They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.

    Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.

    This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.

    She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.

    So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.

    And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.

    You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'

    It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for gross negligence.

    My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there's no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn't. There's nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.

    And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back



    Parent
    Actually, (none / 0) (#202)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 10:40:57 AM EST
    From WaPo (Milbank).  Cant link right now.

    Comey, who delivered his opening statement and fielded questions without notes, calmly explained that to prosecute Clinton, the government would have to rely on a 1917 statute of dubious constitutionality that has only been used once in 99 years.

    Comey said that his "all-star" team of 15 to 20 people who "didn't give a hoot about politics" was unanimous after their year-long probe that Clinton shouldn't be charged. He said they couldn't prove that she knew she was receiving classified information or retaining it on her server.

    And, because the facts in the case wouldn't be used to prosecute a "John Doe," he said, trying to prosecute Clinton with these facts would be "celebrity-hunting."



    Parent
    The hair (none / 0) (#196)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 10:32:09 AM EST
    The ears

    It's definitely a whole package

    Parent

    Separated (none / 0) (#199)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 10:35:09 AM EST
    a birth link

    Parent
    Top News Story Tomorrow (none / 0) (#135)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:20:30 PM EST
    30-40(at least) shots at BLM protest in Dallas.  At least 2 LEOs down with 1 taken to hospital.

    Way to early to say this is definitive but all the rest of the stories to the back of the bus.

    isnt this like (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by linea on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:38:33 PM EST
    maybe the extreme anti-police rhetoric caused this just like the extreme anti-abortion rhetoric incites some people to bomb abortion clinic?  or is that a poor comparison?

    Parent
    Surely we can wait ... (none / 0) (#172)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 03:56:33 AM EST
    ... and not speculate in ignorance about motives, in the present absence of any evidence to that effect. We'll know more soon enough.

    Parent
    Now saying 3-6 LEOs shot (none / 0) (#136)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:24:01 PM EST
    if you listen to the video it is clear lots of rounds fired.  I would not be shocked if more injuries will be reported.

    Parent
    This is tragic (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:28:42 PM EST
    And terrible news.   To tell you the truth I'm surprised it has not happened sooner.   It's the worst of all worlds.   And it has been inevitable for a long time.   The sh!t is going to rain down now.  

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#140)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:29:07 PM EST
    I would think all the other stories are going to be dropped. anyway, still confusing but it seems an assault rifle was involved.

    Parent
    Three LEOs dead 10 shot (none / 0) (#142)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 10:34:32 PM EST
    by 2 snipers according to news reports.  This just gets worse and worse.

    Parent
    Reports seem to have (none / 0) (#153)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 11:09:21 PM EST
    stabilized at 11 LEOs and 1 civilian shot.  3 LEOs dead, maybe 5 in critical condition or surgery.  There is one pix LEOs are circulating as a suspect and asking for help in identifying/finding him.  LEOs are also saying one or both of the shooters may have planted a bomb.

    Sad to say I am not looking forward to getting up tomorrow and reading the latest on this.

    Parent

    4 dead now (none / 0) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 11:16:32 PM EST
    One more LEO has died (none / 0) (#158)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 11:17:46 PM EST
    RIP

    Parent
    Up to 5 LEOs dead (none / 0) (#171)
    by ragebot on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 01:50:09 AM EST
    RIP

    Parent
    CNN has been running (none / 0) (#170)
    by ragebot on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 12:23:44 AM EST
    video of a shootout between one of the suspects and LEOs.  Sad to say the first LEO on the scene was killed; probably because the shooter had body armor which protected him from the shot the LEO hit him with.

    What struck me about the video was the shooter drove up in an SUV, parked it with lights blinking, got out and started shooting wild into an intersection which is what drew attention from the police.  The first LEO to arrive was killed, but in a couple of minutes enough LEOs arrived to capture the suspect.  Almost sounds like an attempted suicide by cop.

    Not saying this would qualify for an insanity defense but this guy is batsheet crazy.

    Even without the tragic shooting anyone driving up to a street corner, parking a car with blinking lights, and wildly shooting into an intersection would have to know it would not take long for a lot of LEOs to show up.

    Parent

    What's the over under (none / 0) (#155)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 11:13:20 PM EST
    For how long it takes for the president to be blamed for this because of the statement earlier?

    I'm sure it's already happening in the fever swamp.  It will be picked up by the MSM by tomorrow morning probsbly.

    Some say........

    I suspect (none / 0) (#161)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 11:27:27 PM EST
    Obama will get some blame.  On the other hand the smart play will be to wait a while and see if the shooters are IDed.  Already one poster here has said the shooters may be in the KKK.  The pix the LEOs posted was of a black male, but his brother has said the weapon he was carrying was not loaded and was turned over to the LEOs before the shooting.  There was video of another black male being arrested for wearing cameos and body armor, but folks in the crowd said he was talking with them when the shooting occurred.  

    Seems clear this was not a lone wolf attack, but utilized two shooters who placed themselves in elevated positions to catch LEOs in a crossfire.  To me that suggest military training, or at least watching movies of an ambush.

    Parent

    Just posted upthread (none / 0) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 11:31:52 PM EST
    The guy in the pic not a shooter.  The KKK or similar thing makes sense to me.  I can see it would make total sense to them

    Parent
    I think they have one (none / 0) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 11:33:28 PM EST
    We might know soon

    Parent
    saying one suspect (none / 0) (#166)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 11:35:21 PM EST
    in shootout with LEOs and in custody, also examining a suspected device

    Parent
    US Marshals (none / 0) (#168)
    by ragebot on Thu Jul 07, 2016 at 11:38:09 PM EST
    now on scene.  Implication is they are dealing with possible bomb.

    Parent
    Two suspects (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 12:08:27 AM EST
    Now in custody.  

    Parent
    Eventually (none / 0) (#174)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 06:38:21 AM EST
    there will be a mass shooting that makes Congress re-evaluate the ease of acquiring guns. It wasn't children at school, African-Americans at church, people at a holiday party, or gays at a nightclub. Will it be this one?

    I don't think Congress will act unless (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 09:21:46 AM EST
    and until members of Congress are impacted. Maybe not even then.

    Parent
    New GOP (none / 0) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 07:29:34 AM EST
    talking point today: An indictment would have been better for Hillary than what happened. I swear you can't make this stuff up.

    Sexist profiling (none / 0) (#206)
    by thomas rogan on Fri Jul 08, 2016 at 09:33:49 PM EST
    Do you notice that the VAST majority of suspects killed by police are male.  Overwhelming majority.  Is this to say that the police are sexist against men?  Profiling by sex?
    Time for a "Male lives matter" movement.