We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, April 30. 2018
‘How Long Do I Have Left?’ AI Can Help Answer That Question
What if Those Paintings... Are Fakes?
Medieval Swords, Firearms, and a Suit of Armor Are Going Up for Auction—and Can Be Yours
Berkeley Fights Harvard, MIT Over Profits From Gene-Editing Tech
Al Gore warns worst of climate change will be felt by black and poor people
Child abuse: NEW FRONTIERS IN RACIAL BIAS
Syracuse: Prof foretells dire consequences from PC academic culture
University of California, San Diego Explicitly Requires All Faculty to Demonstrate Commitment to Moonbattery
Democratic professors outnumber Republicans 10 to 1, study shows
Big Banks Target the 2nd Amendment
Freddie Mac Launches "3% Down" Mortgage With No Income Restrictions
Female journos suspend Hillary’s ‘believe all women’ rule, sign letter of support for Tom Brokaw
Illegals Climb Up Border Fence in Tijuana – Taunt US Officials
"Prepare For The Worst Possible Outcome" Migrant Caravan Warned As It Enters The US
Trump's smart stance on migrant farmworkers
Former Feinstein Staffer Raised $50 Million, Hired Fusion GPS And Christopher Steele After 2016 Election
Comey, THE “LEGEND” LOSES HIS WAY
The Laydown Criminal Case Against Comey
Comey Confirms: In Clinton Emails Caper, the Fix Was In
John Brennan Issues Warning to POTUS About Mueller’s Investigation “Stay Tuned, Mr. Trump…”
Palestinian UN agency faces financial crisis, may cease services
$280 million expansion at Ben Gurion Airport to meet record number of tourists
Over 25 million entries and exits expected in 2019
Chinese geologists report that North Korean nuclear test site collapsed
China Now Regulating US Airline Speech, Threatens United and American
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"Illegals Climb Up Border Fence in Tijuana"
Our laws haven't been enforced and our judges have perverted the law to favor illegals and against citizens. Is it surprising that the illegals feel entitled. What we need is specific legislation from congress that will make it a felony to enter or be in this country illegally And allow ICE to deport illegals without judicial review.
Build the wall.
The Laydown Criminal Case Against Comey ... Comey records himself as saying the following to the President: "I said I don't do sneaky things, I don't leak, I don't do weasel moves."
Given that Comey did a sneaky thing, leaked, and did a weasel move, times change. It's not prosecutable as stated.
Comey Confirms: In Clinton Emails Caper, the Fix Was In
McCarthy agrees that Comey's action with the memos is not prosecutable, but makes a good argument as to why it violated FBI policy: The memos were government property. Comey should be held account under administrative rules.
As for the Clinton email investigation, the FBI investigatory team unanimously found that Clinton did not commit a prosecutable act. In particular, they couldn't show she knew that classified information was on the email server; consequently, it became an administrative matter.
You're arguing the wrong question, starting at page 3, as it were. The FBI's determination that she did not commit a prosecutable act was based on the Justice Department's standard that they would not prosecute unless the investigators could prove intent to hold classified materials on an unsecured server. The conclusion seems to be that either Clinton did not understand what a secure server was or what levels of classification attached to her communications, ergo no intent.
The question being asked, is since the particular standard of requiring intent is not found in the plain language of the statute, does this requirement follow long-standing DoJ policy, or was the decision to apply it in the Clinton Case a political decision, made to protect wither her chances at election or the reputation of the Obama administration? Given the longstanding appearance of reluctance for the Obama administration to seek charges against its own appointees and senior bureaucratic officials, it seems to be a legitimate question to ask.
another guy named Dan: The conclusion seems to be that either Clinton did not understand what a secure server was or what levels of classification attached to her communications, ergo no intent.
This is supported by the fact that none of the communications were properly marked classified, that Clinton used the secure State intranet system extensively for classified information, and that there was no motive for transmitting the relatively small proportion of classified communications through email.
another guy named Dan: The question being asked, is since the particular standard of requiring intent is not found in the plain language of the statute, does this requirement follow long-standing DoJ policy, or was the decision to apply it in the Clinton Case a political decision, made to protect wither her chances at election or the reputation of the Obama administration?
It's based on long-standing precedent. Gorin v. United States found that for the Espionage Act to be constitutional "elements of scienter and bad faith" must be established. For instance, if an official hands a fellow government worker an envelope for delivery, and he loses it through gross negligence, it only becomes a criminal offense if the worker knew at the time that the contents were "relating to the national defence". Even then, it is nearly always treated as an administrative matter.
Zzzz: As for the Clinton email investigation, ...
Give it up, kiddiez, there was no real investigation of Clinton only the coverup finally revealed after the Trump election.
Back to your sandbox.
Z: This is supported by the fact that none of the communications were properly marked classified...
That is wrong. Even CNN reported this (https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/politics/state-department-report-faults-clinton-over-email-use/index.html). This includes this passage:
In January the inspector general for intelligence agencies wrote a letter to Congress saying that two government agencies flagged emails on Clinton's server as containing classified information, the inspector general said, including some on "special access programs," which are a subset of the highest "Top Secret" level of classification, but are under subject to more stringent control rules than even other Top Secret information."
Moreover, this argument implies that the Secretary of State who was also a US Senator and a First Lady who was one of the "two for the price of one" was too ignorant or stupid to be able to recognize classified information on her own.
Also, I'd like to see your attribution for your claim that Hillary used her state.gov account for her classified correspondence. In his exchange with Trey Gowdy, Comey says she emailed classified information from her server and Gowdy contends that she "affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opPh9uG29cQ
mudbug: That is wrong.
Your citation doesn't support your claim. None of the information was properly marked classified.
mudbug: Moreover, this argument implies that the Secretary of State who was also a US Senator and a First Lady who was one of the "two for the price of one" was too ignorant or stupid to be able to recognize classified information on her own.
Most of the classified information would not be easily recognizable as such, including information that was widely published; for instance, drone strikes in foreign countries that the U.S. was not acknowledging. However, some information certainly should have raised a flag.
Clinton said she relied on career employees to make sure no classified information was sent by email. This has been a recurring problem for the State Department. It's not nefarious.
mudbug: Also, I'd like to see your attribution for your claim that Hillary used her state.gov account for her classified correspondence
You are confused. The state.gov email is not for classified information, but for day-to-day business. Only the secure intranet is allowed for classified information. There is wide reporting about her use of the secure system.
This returns us to why Clinton wasn't charged:
1) none of the communications were properly marked classified
2) Clinton used the secure State closed system extensively for classified information
3) there was no motive for transmitting the relatively small proportion of classified communications through email.
You apparently have very little regard for Hillary's intelligence that she wouldn't be able to discern TOP SECRET SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM without being told.
I don't claim that her transmitting classified information was nefarious. Using a private server that was maintained by people who did not have the proper clearances was nefarious. Her not turning over her emails to the State Department as required is nefarious. That she lied about every aspect of the situation was nefarious. Deleting and destroying subpoenaed information was nefarious.
The Zzzz have very little regard for the fact that HILLARY and her group willfully hid and/or destroyed evidence subpoenaed by Congressional oversight committees then lied about it...
mudbug: You apparently have very little regard for Hillary's intelligence that she wouldn't be able to discern TOP SECRET SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM without being told.
Seven of the eight concerned drone strikes that had been widely reported, including in the New York Times. The other was a conversation with the president of Malawi.
mudbug: I don't claim that her transmitting classified information was nefarious.
No. It was careless, but not atypical for the State Department.
mudbug: Using a private server that was maintained by people who did not have the proper clearances was nefarious.
That's not nefarious because email isn't meant for classified information.
mudbug: Her not turning over her emails to the State Department as required is nefarious.
She clearly didn't comply properly with regulations on government records, but did comply after the fact.
mudbug: That she lied about every aspect of the situation was nefarious.
Clinton was certainly less than candid, but there's no evidence she lied to investigators.
mudbug: Deleting and destroying subpoenaed information was nefarious.
There is no evidence that Clinton directed the destruction of subpoenaed information.
No, this all revolves around the secret tarmac meeting and whether Lynch and the Clintons agreed to obstruct justice to get Hillary elected.
Freddie Mac Launches "3% Down" Mortgage With No Income Restrictions ... It just wasn't growing fast enough, because while putting 3% down may not have been especially challenging for most Americans, having even the modest income required to go along with it, was.
The current program restricts mortgages to borrowers with low-to-moderate income (with some exceptions). In other words, there is a maximum income allowed under the program.
In other words, whereas many Americans could not qualify for the original 3% down program because, well, they lacked virtually any income, that will no longer be a hindrance and the government will effectively backstop the lack of income as a new wave of 'income-challenged' Americans rushes in to buy houses.
That is incorrect. The requirement to be low-to-moderate income will not apply to the HomeOne program (they can have higher incomes), but the borrower must still otherwise qualify, including meeting reasonable debt-to-income ratios.
Another 30 degree deviation from the actual topic (H/T:AVI). Did Freddie Mac increase the maximum income restriction or lower the minimum income qualification for the program in order to expand the number of borrowers?
Christopher B: Another 30 degree deviation from the actual topic (H/T:AVI).
No. Our comment was directly responsive to the topic.
Christopher B: Did Freddie Mac increase the maximum income restriction or lower the minimum income qualification for the program in order to expand the number of borrowers?
Freddie Mac increased (eliminated) the maximum income limit to expand the number of eligible borrowers. Durden misunderstood this to mean that there is no requirement that people have sufficient income to repay the mortgage.
Ref child services discrimination
I've seen the disparity in child protective first hand.
A close relative lost custody of her 9 year old for over a year for basically being drunk at home (the child was NOT abused in any way at all). Despite our (wife and I) hiring a lawyer, they dragged the case on and on each time the judge accepted their 'evaluation' that the child needed more time. The lawyer could do little, the agency used their own therapists to fabricate whatever reports they needed to justify continued foster care.
The reason, quite obviously, was that the mother was a blond white woman which they needed for their 'equal treatment' demographics. Meanwhile people of color that this mother knew personally got their kids back after a very short time, often despite serious drug and neglect problems in their homes.
[The relative only got her child back after 1) I spent thousands on a well connected psychologist to support the fact that the mother was not a danger and 2) the foster mother embarrassed the agency by going off on a crazy tirade in front of a lot of people. Who knows how long this would have been dragged out otherwise.]
Having been foster parents some years ago, I can note that this has become a nice big profit center for government. "But it's FOR THE CHILDREN!" BS from start to finish.
It is only as good for the children as the selected foster parents and their activism on behalf of the young ones.
re China Now Regulating US Airline Speech, Threatens United and American
Perhaps some tit-for-tat is in order?
Maybe we should subject Chinese airways to the same treatment if they include Taiwan, Tibet, Macau with China?
It's childish of course but that's all the commie's seem to understand.
re Big Banks Target the 2nd Amendment
One wonders about the legality of this tactic?
One also wonders if there aren't smaller banks out there ready to snatch up the rejected business?
UNRWA should go bankrupt.
The US should cease providing any funds that do anything to provide support for Palestinian areas or causes or schools or lunch programs or tunnels or rockets or anything else "Palestinian."
Mueller has been a compliant bad actor in this stage play since the early 1990s. In case you've forgotten, go to dianawest(dot)net for her recent review of his do-nuth' shenanigans.