Thursday Open Thread: Republican Disconnect

Thumper's running mate, Michael Pence, today said:

“Trump and I believe there’s been far too much talk about institutional bias and racism within law enforcement.”

Trump thinks bringing back stop-and-frisk is a solution to city crime problems.

Thumper's son, Donald, Jr., today defended his much criticized Skittles tweet about refugees, saying in Utah it was an analogy.

University of Utah political science professor Tim Chambless, associated with the U.'s Hinckley Institute of Politics, said Trump Jr. did nothing to help alleviate those concerns with his latest statements.

"You wonder where is his and his father's sense of humanity and decency," Chambless said, noting that many Utahns trace their roots back to the Mormon pioneers who were driven out of their homes and came West as refugees themselves.

They are all out to lunch. Seriously, could they be any more tone deaf, let alone disconnected? If there's any consolation, in my personal opinion, it's that his supporters mostly seem to be the lunatic fringe of America -- joined at the hip by their fanaticism, misplaced nationalism and Clinton hating. Who knows how many of them intend to vote-- or are even eligible to vote? [More...]

The Washington Post reports "Trump ratchets up nationalist and law-and-order rhetoric on campaign trail." USA Today reports Trump has outsourced his fundraising to the Republican party. 538 today reports Jewish donors are abandoning the Republican party due to Trump.

James Corden's funny rant about Trump, Jr. and Skittles (and Brangelina):

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< ISIS Builds Tunnels and Trenches Around Mosul | Poll: Clinton Leads Among Hispanics in Key Battleground States >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Candidate for the Public Defender Hall of Fame (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 07:08:26 PM EST
    Toussaint Romain of Charlotte. Way to go, guy! A modest and courageous hero for our time.

    We thought so too (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 01:11:26 PM EST
    Brought tears to our eyes watching him

    Any take on whether National Guard (none / 0) (#10)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 10:44:04 PM EST
    could/should be sent in to keep peace and avert any more killings?

    It would be great if Hillary could give a speech, like a prior speech she gave, expressing grief not only over shootings of Black civilians but of need to help law enforcement across the country figure out effective ways to do their jobs that protect them and the rights and lives of civilians. Sort of tip her hat to need for "law and order" but in ways that respect the rights of all. Then follow with a plan -- or say she's consulted with law enforcement leaders in NY who handled the ending of stop & frisk and managed to keep crime down, community leaders, hearings, DOJ investigation, think tank recommendations or whatever.
    Pie in the sky?


    Oops! (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 12:01:10 AM EST
    just saw National guard already sent in....

    Translation: Americans use their freedom too much (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 07:18:29 PM EST
    Is that a Trump in your Pence or are you just happy to see me?

    Effing tyrannical idiots who couldn't find their own asses with a new pair of briefs. That the Democratic Party is so vacant, so lacking in imagination and uncorrupted pockets, that this is  still a race, Jaysus, what a depressing disgrace.

    Obama Invented Racism ... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 07:52:28 PM EST
    accorded to one Trump campaign official.

    Thankfully, this one was forced to resign.

    But this is really just par for the course in the Trump campaign.

    I haven't seen that much hair gel (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 11:52:23 PM EST
    since the last Gotti trial.

    With regard to Jeralyn's comments above, ... (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 02:38:28 AM EST
    ... I would further urge everyone to read the following op-ed, and pass it on. It sums up rather succinctly the stakes in this election:

    The Observer | September 22, 2016
    Trump's Brand of Ugly Will Be the Ruin of Our Country - "Let's cut to the chase: Donald Trump is a liar. He doesn't stretch the truth, misspeak, shoot from the hip, tell it like it is, refreshingly unvarnish or have his own version. He lies. He has no relationship to the truth. Truth should be important. His campaign is built on lies. His proposition is a series of lies. Americans should have a problem with that. [...] With every cell I have, I believe that if Donald Trump and Donald Trump values, and Donald Trump ugliness, and Donald Trump hatred, and Donald Trump lies, are allowed to be at the head of our country, it will be the ruin of us. And I can't let that go or go easy on it. You shouldn't either."


    "A Well Spent Life" (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 09:12:53 AM EST
    I'm gonna check that out.. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 04:51:41 PM EST
    Son House used to live not far from here in the Cornhill section of Rochester..

    My son is an antiques dealer, so I've been trying to school him a little on the early-thirties Paramount 78 recordings and the early blues stuff John Lomax recorded back in the day. And not just because the records are worth money..


    It's a great little film (none / 0) (#80)
    by Dadler on Sat Sep 24, 2016 at 05:52:41 PM EST
    Charlotte Update: NBC News airs ... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 06:42:42 PM EST
    Rakeyia Scott: "Don't shoot him. Don't shoot him. He has no weapon. He has no weapon. Don't shoot him. He didn't do anything. He doesn't have a gun. He has a TBI." -- [TBI = Traumatic brain injury. - DfmHI] -- "He's not going to do anything to you guys. He just took his medicine."

    ... some truly disturbing video footage of the police shooting of Keith Scott, as recorded by his now-widowed wife, Rakeyia, and released publicly by the family today.

    Chief Kerr Putney of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Dept. has backed off his initial statements the other night about Keith Scott being armed. (NOTE: North Carolina is an open-carry state.) Scott was reportedly waiting in his SUV at a school bus stop to pick up his 9-year-old son, when he suddenly found himself confronted by police, who were apparently searching for someone else with an outstanding warrant.

    This is just so sad.

    We saw it...terrible (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 07:17:52 PM EST
    And no gun in wife's video but looks to be magically there in police photo.

    I suppose that's why Clinton is demanding the police footage be immediately released, trying to prevent Charlotte from burning tonight.

    If police officers won't listen to family members about their loved ones being deaf or having dementia or TBI...we are all well and truly screwed.

    Saddest video since the fiancee recording her boyfriend's last gurgles. These women had to maintain complete composure while filming or perhaps be killed themselves.

    Who walks up to a police situation though and their first words are, "Don't shoot him!" while their loved is in a vehicle and doing nothing aggressive? This is obviously not a white person reality or problem, I can't even fathom it. I'm used to being able to ask a question, not just have to scream over and over again "Don't Shoot Him!" and still not be heard.


    The gun allegedly bears the victim's (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 08:40:56 PM EST
    fingerprints and DNA.

    That can all be "planted" (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 09:54:50 PM EST
    The police chief is now backtracking on saying he was armed.

    I guess we'll need to await the state police (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 11:05:45 PM EST
    and district attorney.

    So OJ didn't do it? (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 11:07:54 PM EST
    Perhaps the CMPD can clear all this up ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 11:30:55 PM EST
    ... by releasing the dashcam and personnel cam videos. But they aren't -- not yet, anyway.

    After seeing that video footage on NBC, I'm not inclined to take the CMPD's word that Scott was wielding a gun. Scott's wife was pleading with officers to not shoot her husband, telling them that he suffered from a traumatic brain injury and was on medication. They totally ignored her.

    Further, given that Scott was admittedly not the man that CMPD officers were looking for, why did they confront him while he was merely sitting in his car, waiting at the school bus stop for his 9-year-old son?

    Lots of questions need to be answered here.


    Some civilian bystanders reported (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 24, 2016 at 12:21:43 AM EST
    seeing Mr. Scott w/a gun. At leadt one article I read stated he got out of his vehicle with a gun. Then went back into the vehicle and got out of it again with a gun. Law enforcement purportedly contacted him b/c he resembled the sunject of the warrant. I've also read Mr. Scott had more than one felony conviction. Was he lawfully in possession of a firearm?  At least in CA, and ex felon in possession is commiting a felony by possessing a firearm.

    I think it's significant that ... (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Sep 24, 2016 at 02:19:44 PM EST
    ... CMPD Chief Putney -- who said he viewed the dashcam and bodycam videos -- has since backed off his initial claims from the day of the shooting that Scott was armed, noting to that effect that the video evidence was at best inconclusive.

    Initial police statements to the public on such matters are often defensive in nature, and can be notoriously unreliable, as can be eyewitness accounts as well. In this case, did eyewitnesses actually see Scott brandishing a firearm -- or are their reported statements reflective of the actions of police officers themselves, who were clearly yelling at Scott to drop his weapon?

    With regards to Scott's reported resemblance to the person CMPD officers were hunting for, given the well-documented history of racial profiling of African Americans by police in general, that particular convenient and self-serving claim by officers may yet prove to have not been worth the breath taken to say it.

    With regards to Scott's alleged "violent criminal past," unless the officers involved were actually and contemporaneously aware of both Scott's identity and his reported felony conviction, it's an irrelevant point, albeit an ex post facto one which is once again conveniently self-serving to the police, from the standpoint of media and public relations.

    Why is it an irrelevant point? Because IF the officers DID in fact know who Keith Scott was, then I would offer they had absolutely no business even approaching him in the first place, since he was quite obviously NOT the man they were actually seeking at the time.

    The police and the media can't have it both ways here. They can't initially claim that Keith Scott resembled another person of interest which thus justified officers approaching him, and then use Scott's alleged criminal record as further justification for their own violent armed response to his allegedly brandishing a weapon. The second claim would require the officers to possess prior knowledge about Scott's identity and past, which logically and immediately undermines their first claim.



    Of course. Need to see the investigative report, (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by oculus on Sat Sep 24, 2016 at 02:28:52 PM EST
    including witness statements, photos, videos, forensics etc.  too little public info available info at this point.

    And, yes, Mr. Scott's criminal history is likely irrelevant to whether the law enforcement officers were justified in contacting him.  Of course if he was on probation or parole he waived his Fourth Amendment rights.


    ... that Scott was on probation or parole, it's an irrelevant point for the same reason that his criminal record is irrelevant. It would require prior knowledge about Scott's record on the part of the officers, which otherwise undermines their rationale for having approached him in the first place, since he was obviously not the guy they were looking for at the time.

    Legal doctrine on inevitable (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Sun Sep 25, 2016 at 09:35:31 PM EST

    But, again, I am of the school that says wait for the investigation.


    There's always an exception (none / 0) (#81)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Sep 24, 2016 at 07:12:45 PM EST
    Some civilian bystanders reported seeing Mr. Scott w/a gun.

    In an open carry state, that isn't a crime.

    Unless you are Black, right?


    Nobody but this gentleman was slain (none / 0) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Sep 25, 2016 at 01:06:43 PM EST
    In this situation, and he was slain by those who are supposed to serve and protect. I don't know what to say. Police officers act like soldiers under the Bush administration, and only when Iraq exploded did they decide to do something different. Under the existing rules of engagement the officer that killed him would be lucky to not be Leavenworth bound or booted without ceremony from the military.

    I'm constantly told police officers are heroes. In order to fall into that category for me, you have to be a little more willing to sacrifice for the greater good than officers in Charlotte are willing to do.


    The gentleman killed was in his vehicle (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 10:00:30 PM EST
    Waiting at the bus stop for his son :(

    i.e., SIHCWFHSWB (none / 0) (#78)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Sep 24, 2016 at 03:49:47 PM EST
    The released PD footage (none / 0) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 26, 2016 at 12:59:12 PM EST
    Clarifies nothing either. It's all very sad. And they are determined to claim this wasn't mistaken identity, they knew he had weed and that's why they jeopardized their surveillance...for a blunt. It's pretty hard to clearly see someone in their vehicle roll a blunt too AND we all know marijuana makes people docile...not hostile. The story as told makes NO sense.

    From Slate (none / 0) (#95)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Sep 26, 2016 at 06:42:59 PM EST
    Putney spoke at a news conference in which he announced police would release body-cam and dashcam videos of the encounter.

    Along with the videos, the police also released a statement on what is known about the case. Although at first "officers did not consider Mr. Scott's drug activity to be a priority" that changed once they saw him hold up a gun. "Because of that, the officers had probable cause to arrest him for the drug violation and to further investigate Mr. Scott being in possession of the gun."

    The police released photographs of the gun, ankle holster, and joint he had on him at the time of the shooting.

    I'm glad you agree (none / 0) (#96)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Sep 26, 2016 at 07:02:33 PM EST
    ...that this was an unjustified murder by the police.


    That is the most bogus "explanation" of a summary execution EVER!  Thanks for making it clear it was murder.


    One of my favorite things (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 08:50:07 PM EST
    Today would have been John Coltrane's 90th birthday.

    I'll never forget an interview (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 09:47:32 PM EST
    I once heard with Trane's drummer Elvin Jones in which he talked about the Coltrane quartet once playing My Favorite Things for twelve hours, "and the last take was the best one."

    But those guys at their best were beyond time and space, anyway..


    If Drumpf's supporters are the lunatic (none / 0) (#2)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 07:14:21 PM EST
    fringe, then there's a lot of fringe out here. The number of Trump/Pence signs I see around my neighborhood and on the way to work grows everyday. I've seen a grand total of three Hillary signs. Not a warm and fuzzy feeling.

    i have (none / 0) (#4)
    by linea on Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 07:23:17 PM EST
    never seen a Trump/Pence sign. not one. ever. the gay-lesbian tattoo parlor down the street still has their Bernie sign in the window.

    Where do you live, Linea? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 07:33:37 PM EST
    What state or city? urban, rural, suburban? What it means that you haven't seen a T/P sign depends on where you are located, it seems to me.

    seattle {{smile}} (none / 0) (#13)
    by linea on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 01:17:54 AM EST
    very urban. i live in an apartment in the city and i keep pot called Obama Kush (isnt that funny?) that i purchased from a licensed store in my kitchen cupboard for guests and i always have beer in my refridgerator for boys. i dont use either myself. i dont mind talking about myself but this hasnt been a very good night for me. i feel that i try really hard but everything always seems so difficult. i dont know why it needs to be that way.

    Seatlle (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 05:54:23 AM EST
    Yes, that should be a Trump free zone. And Yes, I still imagine Bernie signs are still up.

    Keep trying, tomorrow just might be better


    They are aplenty (none / 0) (#6)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 07:42:07 PM EST
    In Harford and Cecil counties in northern Maryland and in York County, PA.

    What Did Pagliano Do? (none / 0) (#8)
    by RickyJim on Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 10:11:14 PM EST
    Has anybody looked enough into the intricacies of the Clinton email controversy that they could give a reasonable speculation on why a technician would be taking the fifth?  Link.

    A false assumption (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 07:47:38 AM EST
    Invoking your 5th amendment rights doesn't mean you've done something wrong.  Even more so in the case of a very political investigation.

    Your False Assumption (none / 0) (#20)
    by RickyJim on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 10:11:32 AM EST
    is that I was assuming Pagliano did something wrong. I am just trying to understand why his lawyers would advise him to take the fifth.  

    You were making an assumption (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 10:40:12 AM EST
    What did Paulino do? ...
    Was it tax evasion?

    His lawyers would advise him to plead the 5th if their was any chance his words could be used against him,  whether fairly or unfairly.  See Ohio v. Rheiner  - one of the Fifth Amendment's `basic functions ... is to protect innocent men ... `who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.'"

    Was it Tax Evasion? (none / 0) (#9)
    by RickyJim on Thu Sep 22, 2016 at 10:31:35 PM EST
    The best explanation I could find so far is this:
    What's more, Pagliano failed to list his outside income on a required personal financial disclosure that he filed each year, The Washington Post reported. Government personnel rules don't prohibit a political appointee like Pagliano also earning a side income, but there are limits on how much he could earn, and the amounts must be disclosed. He would also have to report the income on his tax returns.
    How much the Clintons paid Pagliano while he worked at the State Department is unclear. He declined to grant an interview to the State Department inspector general, as did Clinton and five of her top aides.

    The Clinton camp (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 10:27:30 AM EST
    Is publicly on record of wanting him to testify.

    It is (none / 0) (#16)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 05:52:13 AM EST
    Paul Combetta now on the hot hot seat.

    The House Science Committee is demanding interviews this week with employees of the IT firm that managed Hillary Clinton's private email server.

    Two of those employees, Paul Combetta and Bill Thornton, recently pleaded the Fifth Amendment when subpoenaed to testify about the server before the House Oversight Committee.

    Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) had originally demanded transcribed interviews with seven Platte River Networks employees in July, but has been rebuffed.
    But Monday reports that Reddit users have uncovered a post by Combetta asking how to modify certain emails for a "VERY VIP" client have led Smith to demand the interviews be scheduled by Friday of this week.

    "If true, these details raise new questions as to whether Platte River Networks purposefully defied legal document retention requirements. Further, it is unclear if the Federal Bureau of Investigation was aware of these facts at the time of their investigation," Smith wrote in a letter sent Monday.

    "Additionally, I am concerned that Mr. Combetta may have made an attempt to delete relevant posts, including the post mentioned above, from his Reddit.com username just hours after reports initially surfaced on September 19, 2016, about his request for assistance on deleting email addresses from archived emails," Smith wrote.

    A username -- "stonetear" -- believed to be associated with Combetta deleted all of its old posts after the reports emerged.



    This Appears to be a Lot More Serious (none / 0) (#22)
    by RickyJim on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 10:33:19 AM EST
    than the Pagliano affair.  It might lead the Republicans/Trump to charge Clinton with destruction of evidence.

    Well, it forever ... (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 01:35:58 PM EST
    ... "appears to be serious" to those of you who are terminally afflicted with CDS. For the Wile E. Coyotes inhabiting the GOP's parallel universe of paranoid wingbattery, there's always going to be one more federal inquiry to second-guess, one more email to find, one more witness to identify and interrogate, one more blind alley to explore at length, and one more Roadrunner to catch. You guys are a pathetic and ad nauseum exercise in political tedium.

    As Nixon learned, it ain't the crime, (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Sep 24, 2016 at 04:18:08 PM EST
    (which was trivial); it's the cover up.

    What cover up? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Sep 24, 2016 at 07:49:59 PM EST
    This matter was the subject of an extensive and thorough investigation by the FBI. The FBI then released its report, and Department of Justice attorneys concurred with the agency's finding and determined that there's no grounds for prosecution. End of story.

    Trevor's simply pulling poo out of his own arse and flinging it toward the exhibit viewing level, just like the mountain gorillas do at the L.A. Zoo. Except in his case, the zoo's closed and everyone's gone home.



    Now (none / 0) (#83)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Sep 24, 2016 at 08:04:05 PM EST
    If Madame Sec pulled a Chris Christie at the UN press conference oh so long ago, and answered every question until they could think of no more, then this might have ended.
    Like a dentist visit, pulling teeth, and you never get the whole story.
    The FBI is now not looking too good either, 5 immunity agreements that we know of handed out. That is really unthinkable

    Does Trump meet this standard of response? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Sep 24, 2016 at 09:24:02 PM EST
    If Madame Sec pulled a Chris Christie at the UN press conference oh so long ago, and answered every question until they could think of no more, then this might have ended.

    Eleven hours, under oath, on live TV.  The questioners were not the press, but her political adversaries, all of whom hated her.  Most people would consider that response on Hillary's part "...answer[ing] every question until they could think of no more."

    Just so we're clear, since eleven hours of answers is obviously not enough to meet your standards, how much MORE than eleven hours would you consider sufficient for Hillary to "answer questions?"

    And of course, how much LONGER than Hillary's eleven hours of questions do you think Mr. Trump could take, because as we all know, he considers himself a tough guy, much tougher than Hillary?


    No (none / 0) (#85)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Sep 25, 2016 at 04:29:52 AM EST
    That wasn't about her e mails and private server, which is driving her dishonest and untrustworthy numbers.

    Do you believe (none / 0) (#87)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Sep 25, 2016 at 05:12:27 PM EST
    ...that Trump's connections to Russia deserve the same degree of scrutiny as Hillary's emails?

    After all, half of his "advisers" have commercial ties to Russia.  How about the fraud at Trump University or his fraudulent charity?  Should these be legitimate subjects for journalistic investigation?

    Or is your standard that only Hillary should be scrutinized?  Have you noticed that she has been accused and investigated to the tune of millions for 25 years, and every charge has turned out to be bogus?  At some point you have to admit that the GOP "cried wolf."  

    We know now that baseless, fact-free accusations ("People are saying...") will sway really dumb people.  Why do you fall for it every time?


    "This might have ended" - heh (none / 0) (#89)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 25, 2016 at 08:07:26 PM EST
    Two problems with that theory:

    1.  It's laughable.  The wingnuts are still trying to tie to Vince Foster and a half dozen other CTs.  Nothing she says would have stopped them.  But nice try at trying to put the blame on her.

    2.  Immunity agreements - "unthinkable"?  You think so?  Please feel free to share your credentials in law enforcement/prosecutions.  What a lay person with no background or evidence "feels" is irrelevant.  Particularly one with a bias/agenda.

    Worked as a (none / 0) (#91)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Sep 26, 2016 at 05:40:58 AM EST
    Federal Law enforcement agent in the late 70's, early 80's.
    Worked on a grand jury investigation by the US Attorney in Manhattan, specifically on a white collar tax evasion crime on the commodities exchange. Immunity was given to 1 defendant which laid the basis for the case to indict and convict 12 other defendants.
    Worked internal security at a major NY bank, worked closely with all law enforcement agencies, local and Federal (FBI) on all frauds committed against the bank.

    Yea, handing out immunity agreements like candy to get information that could have been gathered through the use of grand jury subpoenas and testimony , and then letting a witness (Cheryl Mills) in the investigation, that already was interviewed , and received immunity, to sit in on another interview with Madame Sec violates all the rules of conducting an investigation.
    Orders had to have come down from above to allow that sort of nonsense, which effectively nullifies the validity of the investigation. A major stain on the record of the FBI


    You have absolutely ZERO ... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 26, 2016 at 08:24:33 AM EST
    ... idea what information the investigators had or whether they could have obtained information through another means.   But your background DOES explain a lot.  I worked at DOJ, and we used to laugh at the investigators who thought they could interpret the law better than the actual prosecutors/attorneys.  The retired,  armchair investigators worth no actual knowledge of the case but with a political motivation  are even funnier.  

    You are correct (none / 0) (#27)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 04:07:40 PM EST
    After every turned over stone, there lies another. As irksome as it might be, Combetta and the firm may be in legal difficulty. They willfully destroyed evidence after receiving a subpoena from a Congressional committee. What is wanted is testimony as to what the phone call was about between Platte River and the Clinton camp after the subpoenas were issued, and prior to the destruction of the e mails.

    Although the recent news that Cheryl Mills , among others also received immunity from the FBI (for the contents on the lap top she turned over) makes one shake their head in amazement.
    It appears the FBI was handing out immunity cards like lollipops at the barber shop. Comey has another session scheduled on the Hill next week, and it doesn't look like it will be fun for him once again.


    Heh, heh, heh ... (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 05:47:35 PM EST
    You guys just rinse and repeat ... getting all excited for nothing.

    Good thing you must be used to disappointment by now.


    No one (none / 0) (#40)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 06:24:25 PM EST
    Is rinsing anything,

    This thing just won't die. It just appears that the law for Madame Sec is different than it is for anyone else.
    Nothing ever is released upfront, and the FBI, with another Friday afternoon document dump, is losing any credence that it was a search for the truth.
    There are way s to find evidence other than grant immunity, you issue grand jury subpoenas. And then , after immunity, they still take the 5th. Mind boggling.

    And Cheryl Mills, interviewed as a principal of the investigation, is granted immunity, and then gets to sit in on Madame Sec's interview. WHAT?
    Did they just rewrite the FBI handbook for conducting criminal investigations.
    Comey will have a lot to answer for next week


    "It just appears" - heh (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 06:33:27 PM EST
    It's funny how people think that qualifier makes their specious opinions sound like something more.

    It really doesn't.

    But it's funny how the Republican FBI Director suddenly loses all credibility with the wingers when he follows the unanimous recommendations of career investigators/prosecutors doesn't participate in their silly conspiracy theories.


    Actually, No (none / 0) (#42)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 06:39:33 PM EST
    As everything drips out,

    It is more in the way this investigation was pursued that is making people wonder.

    Although many retired FBI agents had many qualms, and expressed them at the time at how this investigation was conducted


    "People"? - no - just the wingnuts (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 06:42:39 PM EST
    BTW - define "many" retired FBI Agents - then provide links, because it's actually a lot of fun to destroy your silly, false claims.

    Assistant Director (none / 0) (#49)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 07:05:38 PM EST
    San Fran Chapter

    KPIX 5 has learned the Bay Area chapter of retired FBI agents is taking an e-mail poll of its members' response to Comey's remarks.

    Former FBI agent and KPIX 5 security analyst Jeff Harp says most of the responses he's seen aren't in Comey's favor. "Agents aren't happy. There were a lot of reactions to it," said Harp. "A lot of agents' reactions to it and there are some people real disappointed."


    osko stated that many agents would be frustrated because they would view it as nothing less than Clinton getting away with breaking the law -- again

    "There will be widespread frustration among agents about the fact she will be able to walk away," he told The Daily Caller. "As an FBI agent, I would have been fired and likely prosecuted if they caught me doing this."

    he sticking point is Comey's use of the phrase "extremely careless," Hosko said.

    "To me that has the same DNA as gross negligence that the statute requires. Those are identical twins," he said.

    Under the statute, it is a felony to mishandle classified information intentionally or through gross negligence. Hosko said Comey seemed to introduce an element of intent that is not enshrined in that statute.





    So when you claim "many" (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 08:10:50 PM EST
    ... you have no idea what the number is.  Your "many" is what might possibly be a majority of an undetermined number that responded to an email in the Bay Area chapter alone.  Well, ... at least those that Jeff Harp saw.

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    And this is among a group that is primarily Republican/conservative.

    My favorite part?  When Ronald Hosko tries to equate gross negligence (an actual legal standard and the intent required by the statute) with "extremely careless," a personal opinion that has nothing to do with the statute or the law.  A laughable comparison that a first year law student could destroy.  Hard to tell if Hosko's attempt at equating them was ignorance or if he knew and just didn't care.

    The sticking point is Comey's use of the phrase "extremely careless," Hosko said.

    "To me that has the same DNA as gross negligence that the statute requires. Those are identical twins," he said.

    Unfortunately for you and Hosko, decisions on whether to prosecute are made by people who are educated in the law and statutory requirements, not governed by their CDS and political motivations.  Hence the reason that even the Republican Director of the FBI decided to follow the unanimous recommendations of his career prosecutors and noted that "no reasonable prosecutor" would file charges.

    But at least we've straightened out what you meant by "many".



    what are you investigating Trevor? (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by mm on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 06:46:29 PM EST
    remind me again, what the ultimate purpose of this drama was all about to begin with

    What this is of course is extreme gross abuse of power by the House GOP multiple committees working in concert with the GOP presidential campaign to keep "emails" in the news just a little longer.

    You and Chaffetz seem to be unaware that the investigation was concluded about 2 months ago by a team of top professional FBI agents.


    Yeah, sure, right. (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 06:10:50 PM EST
    TrevorBolder: "After every turned over stone, there lies another. As irksome as it might be, Combetta and the firm may be in legal difficulty. They willfully destroyed evidence after receiving a subpoena from a Congressional committee. What is wanted is testimony as to what the phone call was about between Platte River and the Clinton camp after the subpoenas were issued, and prior to the destruction of the e mails. [...] It appears the FBI was handing out immunity cards like lollipops at the barber shop."

    And somewhere in America, customers at a local supermarket are asking the employees why the store always seems to be out of tinfoil.



    very original (none / 0) (#43)
    by mm on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 06:40:56 PM EST
    "No wonder they couldn't prosecute a case," Chaffetz told AP. "They were handing out immunity deals like candy."

    It appears the FBI was handing out immunity cards like lollipops at the barber shop.

    Chaffetz (none / 0) (#47)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 06:48:39 PM EST
    Stole it from me!!!

    That pretty much explains it all. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 07:02:24 PM EST
    TrevorBolder: "Chaffetz Stole it from me!!!!"

    Shorter Trevor. (With yet another optional musical accompaniment.)


    But the real (none / 0) (#50)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 07:11:01 PM EST
    Disturbing part, which no one comments on

    Why all these immunity agreements. That is not the way to investigate a case.
    You form a grand jury, and issue subpoenas.

    The FBI was handing out these agreements , like they just wanted to get done this thing over and done with, rather than do it the right way.

    Any comments on how the hell a person interviewed during the investigation, then gets to sit in on another persons interview? Unheard of.


    And this nugget was dug up (none / 0) (#51)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 07:17:33 PM EST
    Does anyone here tell the truth???

    Last Updated Mar 7, 2015 6:56 PM EST

    President Obama only learned of Hillary Clinton's private email address use for official State Department business after a New York Times report, he told CBS News in an interview.

    President Barack Obama used a pseudonym in email communications with Hillary Clinton and others, according to FBI records made public Friday.

    In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender.

    "Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: 'How is this not classified?'" the report says. "Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email."

    The whole case (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 07:31:57 PM EST
    was not ever worthy of a grand jury despite your imagination. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for retroactively classified information ending up on an unclassified system.

    Of course I guess if I were you I would be wishing for the same things since the GOP is a walking disaster right now. The GOP must be pertpetually stuck on stupid. They investigated Benghazi 7 times and came up empty handed and now are applying that same failed strategy to emails. Whatever. Nobody ever accused conservatives of being smart or being sane.


    Almost all of them (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 07:46:33 PM EST
    Were classified when written.

    retroactively classified information

    Sorry, false meme

    This damn thing would end, if everything came out a year ago. Every week there is some new , Oops!

    These constant drips do not add to the honest and trustworthy of Madame Sec, or our government.


    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 08:26:08 PM EST
    Sorry Trevor. They were not classified when the state department sent the information. The state department gets to decide what is classified. The Intel IG disagrees. That doesn't mean that he is right. It just means there is a war going on between the two departments. There is nothing new on this and the story has basically been the same since the beginning if you had been following along. So some stupid Trumpies are doing more cut and pastes like they did for years with Benghazi.

    However your guy Trump has ties to Russia and even had one of his advisors meet with the Kremlin. But never mind EMAILS a case that was long settled.

    Don't deny you're a Trump supporter. If it talks like a Trump supporter, walks like a Trump supporter it is a Trump supporter.


    No, they weren't. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 09:00:43 PM EST
    TrevorBolder: "Almost all of them were classified when written."

    Opinion is not fact, Trevor, and yours is incongruent with the actual evidence. Your willful insistence otherwise doesn't render what you're saying any more true, than it was the first time you peed on our legs and insisted it was raining.

    At this point, you're just trolling.


    That falsehood has been debunked (1.00 / 1) (#69)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Sep 24, 2016 at 04:25:10 AM EST
    So many times.
    Lets finally put it to rest.

    But Comey reported that, of the tens of thousands of emails investigators reviewed, 113 individual emails contained classified information, and three of them bore markings signifying their classification status. (Information can still be classified even if it does not have a label.) Eight email threads contained top-secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information.

    These were classified WHEN SENT

    About 2,000 emails have been retroactively classified, or up-classified, meaning the information was not classified when it was emailed, but it is now.

    Now these 2000 were retroactively classified, yes, these were.

    This is sad, you read the truth, and walk away saying the opposite.


    ore than 2,000 of the 30,490 emails Clinton gave to the State Department in December 2014 contained classified information -- most of it classified retroactively.
    But 110 emails in 52 email chains contained classified information at the time they were sent or received.
    Three emails included classified markings, but weren't properly marked.


    What you miss (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by vicndabx on Sat Sep 24, 2016 at 11:08:59 AM EST
    The article does NOT say any were marked as classified. That they may have contained classified info is irrelevant if the email doesn't have the requisite marking. Three had a 'c' somewhere in the email. Again not the proper marking. Quibble with the State department if you want, but the Secretary's original statement is accurate.

    Please (1.00 / 1) (#72)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Sep 24, 2016 at 11:47:47 AM EST
    That is irrelevant , if they were marked or not. It is against the law to send classified information, marked or not, on a unclassified system, like a homebrew private server.

    I do not understand how you do not understand.

    113 individual emails contained classified information, and three of them bore markings signifying their classification status. (Information can still be classified even if it does not have a label.) Eight email threads contained top-secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information.


    unclassified system (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by mm on Sat Sep 24, 2016 at 12:04:53 PM EST
    that would include state.gov.

    That alone makes the entire issue irrelevant.

    Once again, what is you point? Her email was set up to be used strictly for unsecured email, exactly what the state.gov system was used.  She used secure methods for classified communications.

    The FBI investigated this for over a year and closed the investigation 2 months ago. Finis.

    The fact that career professionals considered what they were sending her to be carefully worded to avoid classified content, but years later, because for some damn reason, singularly, in an extraordinary and unprecedented abuse of FOIA, every single work email of Secretary Clinton had to be reviewed by multiple Intelligence Agencies before public release, some IC decided that these State professionals may have erred and included classified content is totally irrelevant to the issue of her private server, (which was already in existence and she was sharing with a former President of the United States)


    I'm through discussing this with you, Trevor. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Sep 24, 2016 at 02:38:44 PM EST
    You are clearly misrepresenting fact, by resurrecting baseless right-wing claims which have long since been debunked by the FBI's thorough and exhaustive investigation.

    Further, you are quite obviously an agent for a self-serving GOP political agenda which finds this truth to be inconvenient, hence your efforts to both discredit the FBI investigation itself and impugn the intellectual integrity of those who've taken issue with you and your fellow wingbat Republicans on this particular matter.

    You're wasting Jeralyn's bandwidth with this nonsense.


    Lol (1.00 / 1) (#77)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Sep 24, 2016 at 03:34:55 PM EST
    Facts do hurt sometimes. Tell me again how every e mail was classified retroactively.

    Please stop posting that nonsense and I won't have to keep digging up the truth...again  and again  and again


    The following best sums up your two posts: (none / 0) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 03:02:17 AM EST
    Breaking (none / 0) (#26)
    by FlJoe on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 02:44:55 PM EST
    Ted Cruz trades in his gonads for a place in the basket.  He now endorses an utterly amoral, pathological lying, sniveling coward (his words).

    Ah, c'mon (none / 0) (#28)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 04:08:49 PM EST
    Madame Sec already had a place in the basket for Ted whether he endorsed The Donald or not.

    This (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by FlJoe on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 04:21:24 PM EST
    is not about Clinton, it's about craven Republicans supporting a utterly amoral, pathological lying, sniveling coward. Cruz is just the latest and most obvious. I actually had a modicum of respect for Cruz for his standing up to Trump but alas his true nature prevailed. Craven and of course deplorable.

    Honestly though (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 04:36:10 PM EST
    Joe, is there really that much difference between Trump and the rest of the GOP? They might like to pretend there is but really there isn't.

    They all built this swamp (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 05:56:26 PM EST
    That Trump has risen from

    I've actually thought right along (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 04:37:56 PM EST
    that in some ways Cruz is even more amoral, dangerous, and self-deluded than Trump is..

    At least Trump doesn't throw bloody red meat to the fundamentalist loons. Not on a regular basis, anyway..

    Which isn't to say that Trump isn't self-deluded and dangerous..


    I think (none / 0) (#34)
    by FlJoe on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 05:46:33 PM EST
    there may be a few left who are rightfully appalled by Trump, hopefully they will show up and vote for Hillary.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#37)
    by FlJoe on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 05:56:23 PM EST
    the whole theocratic meets absolute drown the government ideologue is scary, but ha-ha Trump proved that whole pious Christian family values thing was decidedly not what the base wanted.

    As she should (none / 0) (#33)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 05:44:31 PM EST
    You are out your mind...completely (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 05:54:52 PM EST
    Scorpion like (none / 0) (#94)
    by FlJoe on Mon Sep 26, 2016 at 04:53:12 PM EST
    Roger Stone strikes

    ROGER STONE: If you want a leading indicator that Trump is going to win, Ted Cruz's endorsement after Cruz knifed Trump in the back at the national convention shows that even that weasel has figured out that Trump is going to win.


    Look, this guy is a Wall Street, globalist, Bush-creation posing as a conservative. His wife -- I don't know, she's like the Stepford wife. I don't know if she's on drugs or what. She kind of floats through these events. The whole thing is very odd. I think it was Carl Paladino who was watching one of their campaign videos and said to me, "Did you see the body language in the family picture? This guy's wife and his kids hate him." I went and looked and you know what? Carl was exactly right.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#54)
    by FlJoe on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 07:44:10 PM EST
    Report: Intel Officials Investigating Trump Advisor's Ties To Putin Allies
    U.S. intelligence officials are examining the relationship between Carter Page, an informal foreign policy advisor for the Donald Trump campaign, and Russian officials close to Vladimir Putin -- including a Kremlin official believed to be involved in Russian attempts to influence U.S. elections, Michael Isikoff reported Friday for Yahoo News.

    add Trumps favorite general

    Like Trump, Flynn has advocated forging closer ties with Russia. In interviews with The Washington Post, Flynn acknowledged being paid to give a speech and attend a lavish anniversary party for the Kremlin-controlled RT television network in Moscow last year, where he was seated next to Russian President Vladi­mir Putin.
    and lets nor forget like the strangely disappeared saga of his departed Campaign Mgr.
    FBI and Justice Department prosecutors are conducting an investigation into possible US ties to alleged corruption of the former pro-Russian president of Ukraine, including the work of Paul Manafort's firm, according to multiple US law enforcement officials.
    . Call me crazy but I am sensing a pattern here?

    Shhh (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 08:28:23 PM EST
    Don't tell Trevor. He's still obsessing about emails hoping for a white knight to come out of a long settled case.

    Thought I had just discovered (none / 0) (#70)
    by fishcamp on Sat Sep 24, 2016 at 07:22:50 AM EST
    a method of giving two fivers at the same time, but alas it didn't work.  John Coltrane has been one of my favorite musicians since,  well the beginning.  He's way older than me, but I remember his music since high school in Portland.  He will be missed.