Tag Archives: democratic

The Benghazi Charade Is Finally Melting Away

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Republican congressman Richard Hanna talks about the Benghazi committee today:

This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton.

Hanna supports gay rights, so I suppose that basically makes him a Democrat who can be ignored on this subject. Still, the evidence that Republican leaders viewed the committee as mostly a way of making trouble for Hillary Clinton is sure getting tough to dismiss. Greg Sargent comments on how Team Hillary is exploiting this:

It isn’t just that Clinton is using the new GOP quotes to tar it as a partisan exercise and attack its credibility, though that is a key goal….The idea is to turn the ongoing Benghazi battle with Republicans into an emblem of her willingness to fight on in the face of determined opposition — thus playing to one of her strengths, i.e., perceptions of her tenaciousness.

Maybe. But I’d say there’s something else at work here. Do you remember Mitt Romney’s big problem back in 2012? He was perceived as too moderate by the base of the Republican Party. He addressed this by endlessly making over-the-top attacks on President Obama. The calculus was simple: the base hated Obama more than they distrusted Romney, so he could gain their trust by showing that he hated Obama more than anyone else.

Hillary is playing a similar game here. The Democratic base distrusts her, but they hate Republicans more than they distrust Hillary. By making it clear that she’s the primary target of Republican attacks, she’s tapping into that. If Republicans hate her more than anyone, she must have something going for her. Plus there’s just the Pavlovian instinct to defend any Democrat against Republican attacks. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Republicans have screwed the pooch on Benghazi. The press can only play along with their faux investigation as long as they maintain plausible deniability about its partisan goals. But now we have (a) Kevin McCarthy spilling the beans, (b) news reports that John Boehner wanted to use the committee to attack Hillary, (c) Richard Hanna agreeing that it was mostly a partisan witch hunt, and (d) no less than the New York Times reporting that the committee has all but given up on Benghazi in favor of holding hearings on Hillary’s email server. We knew all along there was a man behind the curtain, but now he’s actually been exposed. It’s getting harder and harder to play along with the charade.

Continue reading here:

The Benghazi Charade Is Finally Melting Away

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Benghazi Charade Is Finally Melting Away

Rubio Is Poised to Win the Billionaire Primary

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Presidential hopeful Marco Rubio may not be posting the same support as Donald Trump or Ben Carson in the polls, but he appears to be pulling ahead of his Republican rivals among one crucial demographic: billionaire donors.

In the post-Citizens United era, candidates rely on megadonors to help fuel their campaigns and super-PACs. In 2012, Newt Gingrich’s campaign was kept alive largely through the support of casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who donated $20 million to a super-PAC backing the former House speaker. This campaign cycle, several of the Republican candidates have superrich donors in their corner. New York Jets owner Woody Johnson is backing Jeb Bush, whose super-PAC raised more than $100 million in the first half of the year. Foster Friess, who supported Rick Santorum’s bid in 2012, has the former Pennsylvania senator’s back this time around, too. A super-PAC supporting Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas took in $11 million from eccentric hedge fund CEO Robert Mercer.

But now that the race to win over the nation’s billionaires has begun in earnest, Rubio is poised to take the lead.

Continue Reading »

Link – 

Rubio Is Poised to Win the Billionaire Primary

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Oster, ProPublica, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Rubio Is Poised to Win the Billionaire Primary

Donald Trump Targets Bernie Sanders With ISIS-Themed Attack Ad

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Wednesday morning, the day after the first Democratic debate, Donald Trump unleashed an ISIS-themed attack ad against Bernie Sanders on Instagram. “We need a strong leader—and fast!” Trump wrote in the caption of the video.

We need a strong leader- and fast!

A video posted by Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) on Oct 14, 2015 at 8:29am PDT

Trump live-tweeted last night’s debate and praised the performance of both Sanders and Hillary Clinton. But his video questions Sanders’ national security bona fidesin Trump’s characteristically controversial fashion. The video juxtaposes a clip of ISIS militants with the Black Lives Matter activists who interrupted Sanders during an August campaign event in Seattle, and it argues that if Sanders cannot “even defend his microphone,” then he is also unfit to defend the US. Trump has previously criticized Sanders for allowing the protestors to interrupt his speech.

Does Trump’s targeting of Sanders mean he views him as a formidable rival? Or does he just enjoy trolling his fellow presidential candidates? Perhaps it’s both.

Link: 

Donald Trump Targets Bernie Sanders With ISIS-Themed Attack Ad

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, ProPublica, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Targets Bernie Sanders With ISIS-Themed Attack Ad

Last Night’s Debate Was the Most Watched Democratic Debate Ever

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Update, October 14, 12:47 p.m.: Tuesday’s Democratic debate averaged 15.3 million viewers, making it the highest-rated Democratic primary debate in history.

Donald Trump and political pundits alike predicted that the first Democratic debate would tank with audiences, but the initial numbers show otherwise.

According to CNN, which live-streamed last night’s event as well as the second Republican showdown back in September, the Dems scored 980,000 concurrent live streams, while the Republican debate peaked at 921,000 streams.

Granted, the live-stream numbers reflect a particular, possibly younger and more Democratic-leaning audience than overall viewership. Still, while the Donald may fancy himself a ratings magnet—so much that he graciously offered to live-tweet the Democratic debate to keep viewers engaged—it appears he’s not the only one who can deliver audiences.

Read article here – 

Last Night’s Debate Was the Most Watched Democratic Debate Ever

Posted in Anchor, Bragg, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, ProPublica, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Last Night’s Debate Was the Most Watched Democratic Debate Ever

Here’s What to Really Expect in Tonight’s Democratic Debate

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I assume you all know this by now, but the first Democratic debate is tonight. It starts at 8:30 pm Eastern on CNN, and I gather that it’s scheduled to go two hours. It was originally going to last three hours—which is flatly insane—but apparently CNN got an earful after the endless slog of the last Republican debate and decided to take pity on us all.

So what can we expect? Really expect? My guesses:

The highest polling candidate will be in the center and the lowest polling candidates at the edges. Fox News seems to have set a permanent precedent here.
Hillary Clinton will of course get a question or ten about her email server. She’ll give a standard scripted reply, and the others will all shuffle around nervously when asked to respond. They’d love to take a shot at Hillary, but they’ll be reluctant to look like they’re stooges for Republican conspiracy theories.
Bernie Sanders will be asked if he’s really a socialist. Sigh.
Jim Webb and Lincoln Chafee will both be asked some version of “Why are you here?” This is actually a fair question since neither seems to be running a serious campaign and neither has even the slightest chance of winning.
There will be some kind of question about Joe Biden. Everyone will insist that they love Joe and have nothing but the highest regard for him.
There will probably be some kind of question that dutifully inventories all the conservative complaints about Obamacare and asks what the candidates are going to do about them.
They’ll be asked about Syria, of course. This is an unsolvable problem,1 so no one will offer up anything worthwhile.
Hillary will get asked if Bill is a problem for her.
We’ll be treated once again to a “fun” question. God only know what it will be. Favorite song? Craziest Republican? Person they’d like to see on the ten-ruble note?

Anyway, I’ll be liveblogging it. The thought fills me with dread, but I know that when the time comes, I’ll be there. I’ll hate myself for it, but I’ll do it.

1We are opposed to Assad, ISIS, and all the al-Qaeda supported rebel groups in Syria. This is bipartisan, not something unique to President Obama. This means the only groups we support are “moderate” Syrian rebels who are willing to fight ISIS, not Assad. As near as I can tell, such groups basically don’t exist and never have.

View this article: 

Here’s What to Really Expect in Tonight’s Democratic Debate

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s What to Really Expect in Tonight’s Democratic Debate

Ask Dr. Science: Campaign Trail Edition

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Presidential candidates have been asking a lot of questions lately. Science can help answer them, but this year scientists are in notably short supply on the campaign trail. Asked about the age of the earth, Marco Rubio famously told GQ, “I’m not a scientist, man.” Likewise, Mitch McConnell is not a scientist, Rick Scott is not a scientist, John Boehner is not a scientist, Joni Ernst is not a scientist, Bobby Jindal is not a scientist, and Hillary Clinton is not a scientist—just a grandmother with two eyes and a brain. Luckily, I can help. Here are answers to some of the most pressing questions asked by major party candidates recently.

Bernie Sanders: “Why are we the only major country that doesn’t guarantee health care for all?”

In 1986 James Buchanan won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work in public choice theory, which can shed some light on this. In layman’s terms, public choice theory says you should follow the money. So let’s follow it. Universal health care is expensive. This means higher taxes, which rich people don’t like. Conservative parties cater to the rich, so they generally oppose expansions in health care coverage. In the US, the rich are the richest of all, and the Republican Party therefore caters to them more enthusiastically than anywhere else in the world. As a result, they’re more rabidly opposed to national health care than any other conservative party in a major country.

In other words, it’s because no other country has the Republican Party.

Ben Carson: “Gravity, where did it come from?”

Well, Ben, when a four-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifold and a Landau–Lifshitz stress-energy tensor love each other very much, they produce a geodesic in curved spacetime. And that’s the story of gravity.

Kevin McCarthy: “Everyone thought Hillary was unbeatable, right?”

Let’s look at this statistically. According to a CNN poll from last year, 44 percent of respondents thought it “very likely” and 34 percent thought it “somewhat likely” that Hillary would win the Democratic nomination. Let’s assign p=.9 to “very” and p=.65 to “somewhat.” Then P(Nomination) = .62. The same poll assigned Hillary a conditional probability P(Presidency|Nomination) of .51. Thus, since P(A ∩ B) = P(A) * P(B|A), her perceived chance of winning the presidency was p=.32 and her chance of being beaten was a whopping p=.68. She was light years away from being considered unbeatable.

Or, in simpler terms you’re more likely to understand, there was never any need to brag about the awesome Hillary-smashing power of the Benghazi committee. You’re an idiot.

Donald Trump: “Let Russia do it. Let ’em get rid of ISIS. What the hell do we care?”

In the neorealist school of international relations, hegemonic stability theory tells us that the world is a better place when a single nation-state, or hegemon, is the dominant player on the global stage. Vladimir Putin is challenging us for this role. If he succeeds, the outcome is either a disastrous multipolar world or an equally disastrous world in which Russia is dominant. Ditto for China. In other words, Russia is killing us! China is killing us! We need to beat them!

Marco Rubio: “How can it be that we sent a Republican majority to Congress and yet they’re still not able to stop our country from sliding in the wrong direction?”

The study of political science can provide some insight into this phenomenon. In “Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartyism,” George Tsebelis explains the crippling effect of having too many agents who can obstruct legislative agendas. “The potential for policy change,” he says, “decreases with (a) the number of veto players, (b) the lack of congruence (dissimilarity of policy positions among veto players) and (c) the cohesion (similarity of policy positions among the constituent units of each veto player) of these players.”

Taking those one by one, (a) Democrats can filibuster your endless Obamacare temper tantrums, President Obama can veto them, and the Supreme Court can send you packing; (b) the Republican Party has gone nuts; and (c) Democrats are united in stopping you. Did you really not know this?

Carly Fiorina: “Chuck, Chuck, Chuck, Chuck, Chuck. Do you think this is not happening?”

Of course it’s happening. In Hugh Everett’s relative state formulation of quantum mechanics, the multiverse is composed of a quantum superposition of an infinite number of increasingly divergent, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds. Thus, every possible thing is happening at every possible instant. And stop calling me Chuck.

Hillary Clinton: “Another conspiracy theory?”

Yes.

Read More:

Ask Dr. Science: Campaign Trail Edition

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ask Dr. Science: Campaign Trail Edition

Biden’s Abortion Record Could Cause Him Problems in a Presidential Bid

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

As Democrats fret about Hillary Clinton’s electoral prospects, Vice President Joe Biden has emerged as a viable alternative and steadily risen in the polls. Unlike the outright socialist Bernie Sanders, Biden and Clinton have largely fallen into the Democratic consensus on policy issues over their decades in politics. (Their one noted area of divergence, on how aggressive America’s foreign policy should be, has not been a dominant topic so far in the presidential election.)

But there’s one domestic issue on which Biden has occasionally strayed from the Democratic mainstream during his more than 40 years in politics. Biden has been an inconsistent supporter of reproductive rights, sometimes backing the legal right of women to choose how to handle a pregnancy, while often hewing to his Catholic faith and moralizing against all abortions. Even today, when he and Clinton would most likely agree on most of the policy substance of ensuring access to abortion clinics, Biden sticks to a pro-life view in his personal politics.

During the early part of his career, abortion rights groups griped about Biden as an unreliable ally. “Joe Biden moans a lot and then usually votes against us,” a Planned Parenthood official said in 1986.

When he first entered national politics, Biden was willing to stand alongside politicians who wanted to make abortion illegal. In a Washingtonian profile published the year after the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision established a nationwide right to abortion, Biden unequivocally criticized the ruling. “I don’t like the Supreme Court decision on abortion,” he said. “I think it went too far. I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.”

He put that view into practice in 1982, voting in the Judiciary Committee for a proposed constitutional amendment that would have overturned Roe v. Wade by declaring that the Constitution offered women no inherent right to abortion, and that the federal government and states would be free to regulate or ban abortion as they pleased. Under that amendment, state laws that restricted abortions would have superseded more permissive federal laws.

But Biden moderated his anti-abortion stance over the years. “I was 29 years old when I came to the US Senate, and I have learned a lot,” he said in 2007. “Look, I’m a practicing Catholic, and it is the biggest dilemma for me in terms of comporting my religious and cultural views with my political responsibility.”

By the mid-1980s, Biden had become a somewhat more reliable defender of reproductive rights, at least as a constitutional matter. In his role as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden pointedly questioned conservative Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork’s opposition to the majority decision on Griswald v. Conneticut, a ruling that struck down bans on birth control. Biden has since regularly boasted of his efforts to derail Bork. “Had he been on the court,” Biden said in his 2008 vice presidential debate with Sarah Palin, “I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don’t like and the American people wouldn’t like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties.”

Biden defended the constitutional right to an abortion during his presidential run in 2008. “I strongly support Roe v. Wade,” Biden said during a 2007 debate, when asked if he’d have an abortion litmus test for Supreme Court nominees. “I wouldn’t have a specific question, but I’d make sure that the people I sent to be nominated to the Supreme Court shared my values and understood that there is a right to privacy in the United States Constitution.”

But he’s never abandoned his personal opposition to abortion, even while supporting abortion rights policies for the government. “With regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a—what we call de fide doctrine,” Biden said in the 2012 vice presidential debate against Paul Ryan. “Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews.”

He’s hardly become the sort of clear-cut defender of reproductive rights that Democrats typically demand, particularly at a time when those rights are under assault, with frequent Republican attacks on Planned Parenthood. “I’m prepared to accept that at the moment of conception there’s human life and being,” Biden said during an interview with the Catholic magazine America ahead of the pope’s recent visit, “but I’m not prepared to say that to other God­-fearing, non­-God­-fearing people that have a different view.”

Biden might claim that he doesn’t let his own religious views affect his policy positions, but his record in the Senate tells a slightly different story. During the 1990s and 2000s, Biden received hit-and-miss marks from abortion rights groups that scored congressional votes. NARAL Pro-Choice America often granted him perfect scores for his votes in the mid- and late 2000s. But there were several years when Biden received abysmal marks from the reproductive rights advocacy group. In 2003, he got a 36 percent rating (on a scale from 0, for total disagreement, to 100, for complete alignment). He struggled throughout the 1990s as well, getting a 43 percent score in 1996, a 34 percent score in 1997, and a 46 percent score in 1999. NARAL wasn’t alone in taking issue with Biden’s voting record. Planned Parenthood Action Fund also gave Biden less-than-perfect scores, including a 58 percent average between 1993 and 1998.

His disagreements with those groups largely centered on two measures: partial-birth abortions and federal funding. Throughout his time in the Senate, Biden regularly supported the so-called Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funds from being directed to abortions. “Those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them,” Biden wrote in 1994. He also regularly sided with abortion opponents in the 1990s and early 2000s on bans on partial-birth abortion, or medically intact dilation and extraction. Biden approved final passage of the ban on these late-term abortions when it became a law in 2003. (Hillary Clinton voted against the measure.)

Biden avoids labeling himself as solidly pro-choice, preferring to present himself as a moderate on the issue. “I’ve stuck to my middle-of-the-road position on abortion for more than 30 years,” he wrote in his 2007 book Promises to Keep. “I still vote against partial birth abortion and federal funding, and I’d like to make it easier for scared young mothers to choose not to have an abortion, but I will also vote against a constitutional amendment that strips a woman of her right to make her own choice.”

More here – 

Biden’s Abortion Record Could Cause Him Problems in a Presidential Bid

Posted in alo, Anchor, Casio, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Biden’s Abortion Record Could Cause Him Problems in a Presidential Bid

New Hillary Clinton Emails Surface

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Uh oh:

The Obama administration has discovered a chain of emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to turn over when she provided what she said was the full record of work-related correspondence as secretary of state, officials said Friday, adding to the growing questions related to the Democratic presidential front-runner’s unusual usage of a private email account and server while in government.

This is the kind of thing that really could hurt Hillary Clinton. But when you scroll down to the details, it looks a lot less sinister:

The messages were exchanged with retired Gen. David Petraeus….They largely pertained to personnel matters and don’t appear to deal with highly classified material, officials said.

….The State Department’s record of Clinton emails begins on March 18, 2009 — almost two months after she entered office. Before then, Clinton has said she used an old AT&T Blackberry email account, the contents of which she no longer can access. The Petraeus emails…start on Jan. 10, 2009, with Clinton using the older email account. But by Jan. 28 — a week after her swearing in — she switched to using the private email address on a homebrew server that she would rely on for the rest of her tenure. There are less than 10 emails back and forth in total, officials said, and the chain ends on Feb. 1.

In other words, we’re missing the very tag end of an innocuous email chain from Hillary’s Senate days that spilled over into her tenure as Secretary of State. That’s a little hard to get too exercised about.

I don’t know what the broader picture is here. Clinton has consistently said she switched to her new email address on March 18, but the Petraeus emails make it look like she might have switched by January 28. Or maybe she partially switched? Or else emails started getting forwarded to the new account as a test for a few weeks, and then got deleted on March 18 when she began using it for good? Beats me.

Either way, this seems typical of this whole affair. Substantively, it’s hard to believe anything shady is going on here. After all, it’s unlikely there’s anything to hide from her first few weeks in office, and certainly not the Petraeus emails. But optically, it certainly looks bad. It seems like another example of Clinton handling her email issue awkwardly and defensively when she doesn’t really need to.

On the bright side for Hillary, this news was released on a day when the media was preoccupied with popemania and John Boehner’s resignation. So at least she’s not getting another round of dismal front-page headlines out of it. Yet.

Link to original: 

New Hillary Clinton Emails Surface

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New Hillary Clinton Emails Surface

Debating the Debates: Should Democrats Have More?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Ryan Cooper wants more debates. Before we boo him off the stage, though, note that he’s asking for more Democratic debates. And he thinks Hillary Clinton ought to be in favor. Here’s why:

It would stop Republicans from dominating 2016 coverage….While a lot of the attention is negative due to half the candidates being strap-chewing lunatics, it’s still building a sense of excitement.

….It would give the political press something to talk about besides the endless, pointless Clinton email story.

….Clinton could probably use the practice. I still remember the first presidential debate in 2012, when President Obama was roundly defeated by Mitt Romney. Obama looked like a very powerful man who was not used to being sharply challenged, and came off as simultaneously haughty and unsure of himself. Hillary Clinton is a smart, capable person, but sycophantic courtier syndrome is a real thing, and a square debate on equal footing is one of the few ways someone of Clinton’s fame and standing can work against it.

Let’s examine this. More debates would be fun. On the other hand, it would mean yet more long nights of liveblogging for me. On the third hand—wait a second. I’m curious about something. Do other countries have debates? According to Wikipedia, yes. The following countries have regular campaign debates:

Australia
Brazil
Canada
France
Germany
Ireland
Kenya
Malta
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
United Kingdom
United States

That’s not very many. Thirteen countries out of 200—and only seven that aren’t part of the old British Empire. It’s a little odd that the Anglo-Saxon bloc is so gung-ho on debates, considering that Mother Britain didn’t have its first televised debate until 2010. Of course, they only held a grand total of three, but then again, their campaign season only lasts six weeks. At that rate, we’d have 30 or 40 debates in America.

Anyway, what were we talking about? Oh yes: should Hillary Clinton welcome more debates? I’m going to say no. A presidential campaign is obviously a zero-sum affair, and all her competitors want more debates. Unless they’re idiots, that’s because they think it will benefit them—which it would, by giving them priceless exposure. Obviously Hillary has no interest in that, so like most front runners she wants fewer debates.

So all other arguments aside, the DNC is unlikely to change its mind on this. So tune in on October 13 for the first Democratic debate, held at the fabulous Trump Las Vegas. Just kidding. That would be a hoot, though, wouldn’t it? It will actually be held at the fabulous Wynn Las Vegas, owned by a Democratic billionaire rather than a Republican one.

Original post:  

Debating the Debates: Should Democrats Have More?

Posted in Brita, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Debating the Debates: Should Democrats Have More?

It Sure Looks Like Hillary Clinton Didn’t Have a Cunning Plan to Foil Congressional Investigators

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This happened yesterday while I was away from my desk:

The FBI has recovered personal and work-related e-mails from the private computer server used by Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, according to a person familiar with the investigation.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s success at salvaging personal e-mails that Clinton said had been deleted raises the possibility that the Democratic presidential candidate’s correspondence eventually could become public. The disclosure of such e-mails would likely fan the controversy over Clinton’s use of a private e-mail system for official business.

Nobody seems to have made the most obvious observation about this: It pretty strongly suggests that Hillary Clinton was not trying to hide anything when she deleted personal emails from her server.

At the risk of boring my technically-minded readers, files on a computer work sort of like an old-fashioned card catalog in a library. If you “delete” a book by tearing up the index card, the book is still there. It might be harder to find, but with a little detective work you can still dig it up. Eventually, though, the book will truly disappear. Maybe someone steals it and no one cares. Or the library needs more space and gets rid of all the books with no index cards. Etc.

This is how computers work. When you delete a file, you’re just deleting the index card. The file is still there on the hard drive. Eventually, though, the file will truly disappear. Maybe another program writes over the file. Or you run a disk defrag program and whole sections of the disk get written over. Etc. Some files will get permanently deleted within days. Others might stick around for years. It’s just random chance.

Needless to say, things don’t have to happen this way. If you want to make sure that a file is well and truly deleted, it’s easy to do. Anyone with even a smidgen of computer experience either knows how or knows how to find out. Here’s one way, which took me ten seconds to Google. If I were really serious, I’d take the time to read a bit more, and also make inquiries about backups. This is IT 101.

But apparently Hillary didn’t ask about any of this stuff. No one on her staff brought it up. They just pushed the Delete key and the emails disappeared. The IT folks were never involved.

These are not the actions of a staff trying to stonewall FOIA requests or foil a congressional committee. Any bright teenager could have done better on that score. By all the evidence, Hillary is telling the truth. She just told her staff to delete personal emails and turn over the rest to the State Department. There was nothing more to it.

But no one’s reporting it that way. Peculiar, isn’t it?

Originally posted here – 

It Sure Looks Like Hillary Clinton Didn’t Have a Cunning Plan to Foil Congressional Investigators

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It Sure Looks Like Hillary Clinton Didn’t Have a Cunning Plan to Foil Congressional Investigators