BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
BIMMERPOST Universal Forums Off-Topic Discussions Board Politics/Religion ‘We’re running a f—ing casino’: Politician tells all in manifesto.

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      05-15-2016, 02:40 PM   #1
cays
Private First Class
122
Rep
155
Posts

Drives: 3 Germans
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

‘We’re running a f—ing casino’: Politician tells all in manifesto.

NY Post
‘We’re running a f—ing casino’: Politician tells all in manifesto
By Carl Campanile May 13, 2016 | 12:12am

An anonymous congressman has dropped a bombshell election-year book that confirms why Americans hate their national government and have rallied to anti-establishment presidential candidates like Donald Trump.

The veteran politician lays bare a rotten and corrupt Congress enslaved by lobbyists and interested only in re-election in an anonymous, 65-page manifesto called “The Confessions of Congressman X.”

“Like most of my colleagues, I promise my constituents a lot of stuff I can never deliver,” he admits. “But what the hell? It makes them happy hearing it . . . My main job is to keep my job.”

The House member — a Democrat who is either still in Congress or served sometime over the past two decades — says more time is spent fundraising than reading bills and calls Washington a “sinkhole of leeches.”

The title of one chapter sums up his view of congressional leaders: “Harry Reid’s a Pompous Ass,” he says of the Senate Democratic leader.

The book, published by the small Mill City Press, is based on years of transcribed private discussions, which the congressman last November gave editor Robert Atkinson. Atkinson declined to say whether Congressman X is a current or former House member.

X says the cloak of anonymity gave him the freedom to expose *secrets, including how the public’s money is wasted.

“We spend money we don’t have and blithely mortgage the future with a wink and a nod. Screw the next generation. It’s about getting credit now, lookin’ good for the upcoming election,” he says. He said he and his colleagues often lie to try to be all things to all people instead of tackling the nation’s problems.

“I contradict myself all the time, but few people notice,” X says. “One minute I rail against excessive spending and ballooning debt. The next minute I’m demanding more spending on education, health care, unemployment benefits, conservation projects, yadda, yadda, yadda.”

Voters are described as gullible, know-nothing jerks, while the only people who count are the big donors who pour billions of dollars into lobbying. “Voters are incredibly ignorant. It’s far easier than you think to manipulate a nation of naive, self-absorbed sheep who crave instant gratification . . .,” vents Congressman X.

He says money “corrupts” and House members are “puppets” to lobbyists who bankroll their campaigns. “Business organizations and unions fork over more than $3 billion a year to those who lobby the federal government. Does that tell you something? We’re operating a f–king casino,” he says.

He describes himself as a “closet moderate” who supports charter schools and tax vouchers to allow poor kids to go to private schools. But students take a back seat to partisan politics. “Our education’s in the toilet, and all we do is snipe at each other,” he says.

Congress is too polarized and partisan to get anything done, by the congressman’s account.

“There seems to be a complete disintegration of confidence in government. A fear that government is its own special interest,” he says. “America’s on an irreversible decline and no one in Washington seems to care . . . God help us.”

The controversial book set off a guessing game in the political world about the author’s identity. New York sources speculated it’s Rep. Steve Israel (D-LI), a moderate who announced he’s retiring and who has complained about the constant need to fundraise to finance re-election campaigns.

But Israel, a novelist, denied that he took pen to paper this time. “Absolutely not true, never heard of it before. And frankly, now that I’m leaving Congress, if I were to write a book like that, I would put my name on it,” *Israel said in a statement.
Appreciate 1
      05-15-2016, 08:12 PM   #2
PJinCA
USAF Pararescue Veteran
United_States
317
Rep
766
Posts

Drives: F10 535
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: SoCal

iTrader: (0)

Not surprising at all really. Most people with intelligence realize congress is a shithole, with fakes on both sides of the aisle that really couldn't give less of a shit about their constituents. Why would they? The constituents don't pay them nearly enough as the lobbyists do. However, they do know what to say to excite their bases and get reelected and keep the cash flowing. I have thought for years that none of these jerks actually believe a word that comes out of their mouths, but their supporters lap it up and later, behind closed doors, congressmen and senators from both sides laugh at the stupidity and gullibility of the people. Maybe I am cynical, but I don't think so.
Appreciate 1
      05-15-2016, 09:48 PM   #3
PoorLurker
Custom User Title
PoorLurker's Avatar
No_Country
1140
Rep
637
Posts

Drives: a bicycle
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Orange County, CA

iTrader: (0)

Or did someone find a House of Cards knock off pilot script?
Appreciate 0
      05-15-2016, 09:50 PM   #4
fareast1
Second Lieutenant
fareast1's Avatar
40
Rep
208
Posts

Drives: 2006 330I, 1996 z3, 2010 X5
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Northeast

iTrader: (1)

i doubt much will come of it.
Appreciate 0
      05-15-2016, 10:03 PM   #5
ptbarnacle
Second Lieutenant
ptbarnacle's Avatar
United_States
118
Rep
251
Posts

Drives: '16- MW M3
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: East of Sacramento, EDH

iTrader: (0)

Lobbyists

I didn't realize it was only 65 pages. Is there more of a book surrounding the 65 pages of "conversations "?

I wrote a paper in college (1987) Business Law class about lobbyists and the tax code curupting government. Wish I knew where that paper went. Might be on a floppy somewhere.
__________________
'16 M3 /MW /Blk Full
Appreciate 0
      05-16-2016, 09:47 AM   #6
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
9583
Rep
8,231
Posts

Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ptbarnacle View Post
I didn't realize it was only 65 pages. Is there more of a book surrounding the 65 pages of "conversations "?

I wrote a paper in college (1987) Business Law class about lobbyists and the tax code curupting government. Wish I knew where that paper went. Might be on a floppy somewhere.
If it's 3.5", I still have a USB reader I could loan you to get it on the interwebs.
Appreciate 0
      05-16-2016, 09:56 AM   #7
Delta0311
Banned
7395
Rep
10,130
Posts

Drives: 2011 BMW 335xi E92 2016 228xi
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NJ

iTrader: (1)

Not shocking at all. You got your nobles and your serfs. We are serfs and our politicians are our elected nobility. The major difference between us and the serfs from the old days is the fact that they where much smarter then us. They at least knew damn well who was fucking them. We on the other hand are stupid enough to keep re-electing the same dipshits back into office. It's like going out on a data, getting raped, complaining about it and then going out with the guy again because "hey I think he's changed". God we are so fucking stupid..
Appreciate 0
      05-16-2016, 10:20 AM   #8
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
9583
Rep
8,231
Posts

Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

I swipe left, and get the same guy back on my screen.
Appreciate 0
      05-16-2016, 11:11 AM   #9
m5james
Lieutenant Colonel
m5james's Avatar
United_States
326
Rep
1,970
Posts

Drives: '10 X5M Alpine White on Sakhir
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Marysville, WA

iTrader: (0)

"Voters are incredibly ignorant..." is a very true statement.
Attached Images
 
__________________
'10 BMW X5///M - Alpine White on Sakhir Orange - JB4 w/ HCP Stage 2 BEF, NGK 97506 @ .20, SS tubing & BMC filters, gutted cats, AC Forged 312 22's, H&R 2"
'98 BMW 740iL - ///E39 M5 6spd swap, fully built engine (sleeved, P&P, cams), 3.46 LSD, H&R Stage 2/Bilstein HD, Magnaflow 14816's
'97 BMW 328ci - ///E36 M3 clutch & L/W flywheel, Z4///M 18's
Appreciate 0
      05-16-2016, 01:07 PM   #10
kent11202
Captain
United_States
527
Rep
889
Posts

Drives: 2013 328i
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: SF Bay Area

iTrader: (0)

I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion.

Alexander the Great
Appreciate 1
      05-16-2016, 01:13 PM   #11
fecurtis
Banned
United_States
3169
Rep
6,302
Posts

Drives: 2014 BMW 335i M-Sport
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arlington, VA

iTrader: (0)

This is about as surprising as the time I learned that water is wet.
Appreciate 2
      05-16-2016, 05:47 PM   #12
MKSixer
Major General
MKSixer's Avatar
23226
Rep
9,726
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Efthreeoh View Post
Depends on what the definition of "is" is...
I'm still unclear on this.
Appreciate 0
      05-16-2016, 11:59 PM   #13
ptbarnacle
Second Lieutenant
ptbarnacle's Avatar
United_States
118
Rep
251
Posts

Drives: '16- MW M3
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: East of Sacramento, EDH

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
If it's 3.5", I still have a USB reader I could loan you to get it on the interwebs.

If I find it I will definitely take you up on that. I'm not even sure what program it was written in, used the computer room at the library back then to write papers. Wasn't till the next year or so that I got my brand new Mac SE with a floppy drive and the optional top of the line 40MB hard drive. Built in black and white monitor.
Attached Images
 
__________________
'16 M3 /MW /Blk Full
Appreciate 0
      05-17-2016, 07:09 AM   #14
SonnyJack
Captain
United_States
179
Rep
731
Posts

Drives: '09 E92 M3 6MT Jerez Black
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Laurel, MD

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
If it's 3.5", I still have a USB reader I could loan you to get it on the interwebs.
No way man! 1987 was still 5.25". At least at my college it was!

I just had a painful flashback to the all powerful 25 Mhz MS-DOS PC days!
__________________
AA Gen 3 Lvl 2 w/Meth; MagnaFlow catless x-pipe; DB Undertray; Dinan Underdrive Pulley; VAC Coated Bearings; ARP Rod Bolts; Oil Diverter Valve; Dinan Strut Braces; Dinan Rear Toe Links; ECS Rear Trailing Arms; KWv3 Coilovers w/Swift Springs 448F/784R; Vorschlag Camber Plates; AKG 75D MM & 95A TM; CAE Shifter; Titan T-S5; StopTech ST60 380mm/ST40 355mm; MFactory DS; APR Splitter; APR GT250 Rear Wing; Autopower Rollbar; OMP WRC-R Seats
Appreciate 0
      05-17-2016, 09:20 AM   #15
ptbarnacle
Second Lieutenant
ptbarnacle's Avatar
United_States
118
Rep
251
Posts

Drives: '16- MW M3
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: East of Sacramento, EDH

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SonnyJack View Post
No way man! 1987 was still 5.25". At least at my college it was!

I just had a painful flashback to the all powerful 25 Mhz MS-DOS PC days!

I can't remember that long ago too well... Could be all the beer in college. I looked up dates of different floppies.

From wiki
Things changed dramatically in 1982 when the Microfloppy Industry Committee, a consortium ultimately of 23 media companies, agreed upon a 3˝-inch media specification based upon but differing from the original Sony design.[59] The first single-sided drives compatible with this new media specification shipped in early 1983,[60] followed immediately in 1984 by double-sided compatible versions.[61] In 1984, Apple Computer selected the format for their new Macintosh computers.[62] Then, in 1985, Atari adopted it for their new ST line, and Commodore for their new Amiga. By 1988, the 3˝-inch was outselling the 5Ľ-inch.[63]
Attached Images
 
__________________
'16 M3 /MW /Blk Full
Appreciate 1
      05-17-2016, 12:04 PM   #16
SonnyJack
Captain
United_States
179
Rep
731
Posts

Drives: '09 E92 M3 6MT Jerez Black
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Laurel, MD

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ptbarnacle View Post

I can't remember that long ago too well... Could be all the beer in college. I looked up dates of different floppies.

From wiki
Things changed dramatically in 1982 when the Microfloppy Industry Committee, a consortium ultimately of 23 media companies, agreed upon a 3˝-inch media specification based upon but differing from the original Sony design.[59] The first single-sided drives compatible with this new media specification shipped in early 1983,[60] followed immediately in 1984 by double-sided compatible versions.[61] In 1984, Apple Computer selected the format for their new Macintosh computers.[62] Then, in 1985, Atari adopted it for their new ST line, and Commodore for their new Amiga. By 1988, the 3˝-inch was outselling the 5Ľ-inch.[63]
It just figures that my school were cheapskates!
__________________
AA Gen 3 Lvl 2 w/Meth; MagnaFlow catless x-pipe; DB Undertray; Dinan Underdrive Pulley; VAC Coated Bearings; ARP Rod Bolts; Oil Diverter Valve; Dinan Strut Braces; Dinan Rear Toe Links; ECS Rear Trailing Arms; KWv3 Coilovers w/Swift Springs 448F/784R; Vorschlag Camber Plates; AKG 75D MM & 95A TM; CAE Shifter; Titan T-S5; StopTech ST60 380mm/ST40 355mm; MFactory DS; APR Splitter; APR GT250 Rear Wing; Autopower Rollbar; OMP WRC-R Seats
Appreciate 0
      05-18-2016, 10:40 AM   #17
fecurtis
Banned
United_States
3169
Rep
6,302
Posts

Drives: 2014 BMW 335i M-Sport
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arlington, VA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Efthreeoh View Post
I'm still unclear on how the Secretary of State thinks it was okay to use her private server as an e-mail account to conduct United States State Department business.
It's strange how Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice did the exact same thing but no one is demanding they be thrown in jail.

Wait no, it's not strange. It's just typical partisan bullshit that the misinformed eat up like always.
Appreciate 0
      05-18-2016, 11:29 AM   #18
bbbbmw
Major General
2387
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fecurtis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Efthreeoh View Post
I'm still unclear on how the Secretary of State thinks it was okay to use her private server as an e-mail account to conduct United States State Department business.
It's strange how Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice did the exact same thing but no one is demanding they be thrown in jail.

Wait no, it's not strange. It's just typical partisan bullshit that the misinformed eat up like always.
They didn't do "exactly the same thing" at all:

http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe...anger-n2114842

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...did-same-thin/

And their billion dollar "charitable foundations" didn't benefit from governments who received classified information. And they don't pay their kids $1M/yr to "manage" the foundations, who don't give any of the money to charities. Actually, Powell and Rice didn't set up billion dollar foundations - that would likely be seen as a "conduct of interest" - like Bill Clinton's pardons that got Hillary elected to Congress. But I digress.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      05-18-2016, 12:04 PM   #19
fecurtis
Banned
United_States
3169
Rep
6,302
Posts

Drives: 2014 BMW 335i M-Sport
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Arlington, VA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
They didn't do "exactly the same thing" at all:

http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe...anger-n2114842

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...did-same-thin/

And their billion dollar "charitable foundations" didn't benefit from governments who received classified information. And they don't pay their kids $1M/yr to "manage" the foundations, who don't give any of the money to charities. Actually, Powell and Rice didn't set up billion dollar foundations - that would likely be seen as a "conduct of interest" - like Bill Clinton's pardons that got Hillary elected to Congress. But I digress.
Yeah they did:

Quote:
So did Powell and the aides to Rice violate rules governing classified information, since the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) staff has recently determined that some of their years-old personal emails contain top-secret material? No. The rules regarding the handling of classified information apply to communications designated as secret at that time . If documents that aren’t deemed classified, and aren’t handled through a SCIF when they are created or initially transmitted, are later, in retrospect, deemed secret, the classification is new—and however the record was handled in the past is irrelevant.

There is also an enormous difference between a secretary of state sending an email to someone inside the department and that same email being released to the general public. Put simply, as anyone who has filed a request for a document under the FOIA knows, not every email or other item can be handed out, even if it was not originally deemed to be so confidential that it required SCIF procedures. The determination of what State Department documents can be publicly released is handled by the FOIA staff, both in the State Department and, when deemed appropriate, by officials with the same duties in the intelligence community. In fact, the entire issue right now regarding the emails of every secretary of state concerns which ones can be released under the FOIA. People outraged by the (false) belief that Powell and Rice’s aides broke the law are creating a fantasy world where every official email, no matter its content, must go through a SCIF just in case the FOIA staff eventually determines, sometime in the future and applying different standards, that the information in the email should not be released to the public under a FOIA request out of classification concerns. Given the cumbersome procedures of using a SCIF, that would mean the secretary of state would have to spend a lot of time sitting inside a locked box and sending emails not yet designated as containing secret information, solely to avoid the partisan gnashing of teeth that could potentially occur if someday the FOIA staff were to retroactively decide they should not be released to the public out of classification concerns.

Which brings us to the next most important issue here: classification. Members of Congress should—and probably do—know this, but the public apparently doesn’t. Just because the FOIA staff decides a document is top secret doesn’t mean it contains information of any import. (It’s widely known that, even in the creation of a document, the government over-classifies information, meaning communications are deemed secret that don’t need to be, but that’s another issue.) The FOIA staff is supposed to be extra-cautious when releasing a document to the public. As I mentioned in a previous column, that is why anyone wanting to obtain a document should file multiple FOIA requests for the information—one staffer might deem something secret that another staffer releases without concern. In fact, if someone were to submit a FOIA request for every email in the State Department that has been sent over a system without the extreme protections reserved for information determined to be top secret on creation, there is no doubt that the FOIA staff would call many of the emails classified and refuse the request.

Plus, both Powell and Rice had the authority, granted by President George W. Bush through executive order, to classify and declassify any document created by the State Department. So if either of them had received an email from another agency containing information that had not gone through a SCIF, he or she could have independently declared that it did not need to be secret and sent it along to anyone they chose.

In other words, just because the FOIA staff years later labeled emails sent from Powell and Rice’s aides as classified does not mean those records contain some crown jewels of critical intelligence. In fact, usually they are quite benign. I have seen emails called “top secret” that contained nothing more than a forwarded news article that had been published. (The Associated Press has reported that one of Clinton’s “secret” emails contains an AP article.)

Then there is the issue of servers. Where did Powell and Rice’s staff have their servers? Who knows, and who cares? Maybe they were private with special security and no public access. Or maybe they were just an AOL server. Whichever it was, they would be just as open to hacking as the State Department servers. In fact, the State Department general email system has been hacked multiple times, with terabytes of information improperly downloaded in 2006 alone. There has been no indication that the email accounts of either Powell or Rice’s staff were compromised.

Powell may have made one mistake in all this. He has said he never backed up his emails or printed them out; that was necessary to comply with some of the preservation rules detailed in the Federal Register. Of course, that doesn’t mean they can’t be recovered, since the FOIA staff is now reviewing his emails.

The bottom line: Democrats may try to turn the revelations about the email accounts used by Powell and Rice’s staff into a scandal. They may release press statements condemning the former secretaries of state; they may call for scores of unnecessary congressional hearings; they may go to the press and confidently proclaim that crimes were committed by these honorable Republicans. But it would all be lies. Powell and Rice did nothing wrong. This could be considered a scandal only by ignorant or lying partisans.

So there is no Powell or Rice email scandal. And no doubt, that will infuriate the Republicans who are trying so hard to trick people into believing Clinton committed a crime by doing the exact same thing as her predecessors.
http://www.newsweek.com/colin-powell...clinton-424187

The location of her private servers aren't really relevant.

What DOES make it different is how she handled it. If she did handle classified information improperly (with the caveat, as outlined in the article above, that it's legal if it were deemed unclassified at the time they were sent out) then yes she'd be breaking the law.

But she's not going to jail or will be prosecuted, why? Because she wiped her servers, no one is going to find anything.

So while the point of my argument is to say what she's done isn't much different than her predecessors, her handling of it is what lends more credence to the fact that people just don't trust her.
Appreciate 0
      05-18-2016, 12:33 PM   #20
bbbbmw
Major General
2387
Rep
6,083
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fecurtis
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
They didn't do "exactly the same thing" at all:

http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe...anger-n2114842

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...did-same-thin/

And their billion dollar "charitable foundations" didn't benefit from governments who received classified information. And they don't pay their kids $1M/yr to "manage" the foundations, who don't give any of the money to charities. Actually, Powell and Rice didn't set up billion dollar foundations - that would likely be seen as a "conduct of interest" - like Bill Clinton's pardons that got Hillary elected to Congress. But I digress.
Yeah they did:

Quote:
So did Powell and the aides to Rice violate rules governing classified information, since the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) staff has recently determined that some of their years-old personal emails contain top-secret material? No. The rules regarding the handling of classified information apply to communications designated as secret at that time . If documents that aren’t deemed classified, and aren’t handled through a SCIF when they are created or initially transmitted, are later, in retrospect, deemed secret, the classification is new—and however the record was handled in the past is irrelevant.

There is also an enormous difference between a secretary of state sending an email to someone inside the department and that same email being released to the general public. Put simply, as anyone who has filed a request for a document under the FOIA knows, not every email or other item can be handed out, even if it was not originally deemed to be so confidential that it required SCIF procedures. The determination of what State Department documents can be publicly released is handled by the FOIA staff, both in the State Department and, when deemed appropriate, by officials with the same duties in the intelligence community. In fact, the entire issue right now regarding the emails of every secretary of state concerns which ones can be released under the FOIA. People outraged by the (false) belief that Powell and RiceÂ’s aides broke the law are creating a fantasy world where every official email, no matter its content, must go through a SCIF just in case the FOIA staff eventually determines, sometime in the future and applying different standards, that the information in the email should not be released to the public under a FOIA request out of classification concerns. Given the cumbersome procedures of using a SCIF, that would mean the secretary of state would have to spend a lot of time sitting inside a locked box and sending emails not yet designated as containing secret information, solely to avoid the partisan gnashing of teeth that could potentially occur if someday the FOIA staff were to retroactively decide they should not be released to the public out of classification concerns.

Which brings us to the next most important issue here: classification. Members of Congress should—and probably do—know this, but the public apparently doesn’t. Just because the FOIA staff decides a document is top secret doesn’t mean it contains information of any import. (It’s widely known that, even in the creation of a document, the government over-classifies information, meaning communications are deemed secret that don’t need to be, but that’s another issue.) The FOIA staff is supposed to be extra-cautious when releasing a document to the public. As I mentioned in a previous column, that is why anyone wanting to obtain a document should file multiple FOIA requests for the information—one staffer might deem something secret that another staffer releases without concern. In fact, if someone were to submit a FOIA request for every email in the State Department that has been sent over a system without the extreme protections reserved for information determined to be top secret on creation, there is no doubt that the FOIA staff would call many of the emails classified and refuse the request.

Plus, both Powell and Rice had the authority, granted by President George W. Bush through executive order, to classify and declassify any document created by the State Department. So if either of them had received an email from another agency containing information that had not gone through a SCIF, he or she could have independently declared that it did not need to be secret and sent it along to anyone they chose.

In other words, just because the FOIA staff years later labeled emails sent from Powell and Rice’s aides as classified does not mean those records contain some crown jewels of critical intelligence. In fact, usually they are quite benign. I have seen emails called “top secret” that contained nothing more than a forwarded news article that had been published. (The Associated Press has reported that one of Clinton’s “secret” emails contains an AP article.)

Then there is the issue of servers. Where did Powell and RiceÂ’s staff have their servers? Who knows, and who cares? Maybe they were private with special security and no public access. Or maybe they were just an AOL server. Whichever it was, they would be just as open to hacking as the State Department servers. In fact, the State Department general email system has been hacked multiple times, with terabytes of information improperly downloaded in 2006 alone. There has been no indication that the email accounts of either Powell or RiceÂ’s staff were compromised.

Powell may have made one mistake in all this. He has said he never backed up his emails or printed them out; that was necessary to comply with some of the preservation rules detailed in the Federal Register. Of course, that doesnÂ’t mean they canÂ’t be recovered, since the FOIA staff is now reviewing his emails.

The bottom line: Democrats may try to turn the revelations about the email accounts used by Powell and RiceÂ’s staff into a scandal. They may release press statements condemning the former secretaries of state; they may call for scores of unnecessary congressional hearings; they may go to the press and confidently proclaim that crimes were committed by these honorable Republicans. But it would all be lies. Powell and Rice did nothing wrong. This could be considered a scandal only by ignorant or lying partisans.

So there is no Powell or Rice email scandal. And no doubt, that will infuriate the Republicans who are trying so hard to trick people into believing Clinton committed a crime by doing the exact same thing as her predecessors.
http://www.newsweek.com/colin-powell...clinton-424187

The location of her private servers aren't really relevant.

What DOES make it different is how she handled it. If she did handle classified information improperly (with the caveat, as outlined in the article above, that it's legal if it were deemed unclassified at the time they were sent out) then yes she'd be breaking the law.

But she's not going to jail or will be prosecuted, why? Because she wiped her servers, no one is going to find anything.

So while the point of my argument is to say what she's done isn't much different than her predecessors, her handling of it is what lends more credence to the fact that people just don't trust her.
I generally agree with your last paragraph, but I think it does make a difference where the servers are located (a federal facility vs. Hillary's bathroom), who supports them (fed agency staff vs. geek squad or independents), etc. the others didn't wipe their servers either, as you said.

Hillary also used these far more than the others, and is even on video telling someone she would never use a government server, because she doesn't want to be investigated.

But like this, and so many other issues, many people just look the other way with the Clinton's, for whatever reason.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      05-19-2016, 03:02 PM   #21
gonzo
Lieutenant General
gonzo's Avatar
United_States
8695
Rep
13,880
Posts

Drives: as many as possible
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: TeXXXas

iTrader: (0)

A casino full of hypocrisy. Even in Canada.
Please, please...PLEASE forgive me.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Big bad bully.
__________________
Crazy Diamond
Appreciate 0
      05-19-2016, 03:12 PM   #22
The Wind Breezes
Lieutenant Colonel
The Wind Breezes's Avatar
852
Rep
1,856
Posts

Drives: 135i N55 DCT
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

I already heard all this stuff before, it was in government class in high school. His "bombshells" are not news.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:14 PM.




bmw
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST