2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Cackalacky]

Everyone hates so called corporate subsidies unless it's their own state or local government handing it out to keep their employer from packing up and leaving.

To an extent I agree. I believe some form of persuasion is necessary. But, take my state for example.... Between Boeing, Google, Amazon, BMW and soon to be Volvo, our governor has leveraged the state so much that if those guys pull out or ramp down we will be stuck holding almost a billion dollars in issued bonds for infrastructure improvements, wider roads, and all kinds of stuff to support those facilities. They of course pay for little, get free land, or are able to write off large chunks in exchange for settling in SC.

 

[Wild Bill]

To an extent I agree. I believe some form of persuasion is necessary. But, take my state for example.... Between Boeing, Google, Amazon, BMW and soon to be Volvo, our governor has leveraged the state so much that if those guys pull out or ramp down we will be stuck holding almost a billion dollars in issued bonds for infrastructure improvements, wider roads, and all kinds of stuff to support those facilities. They of course pay for little, get free land, or are able to write off large chunks in exchange for settling in SC.

They may pay very little but the tax base they create is enormous and the jobs they bring are invaluable. And that's why state and local governments will always be on the ass end of these deals - they have very little leverage. If they're not willing to play ball, 49 other states are going to welcome them with open arms.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

They may pay very little but the tax base they create is enormous and the jobs they bring are invaluable. And that's why state and local governments will always be on the ass end of these deals - they have very little leverage. If they're not willing to play ball, 49 other states are going to welcome them with open arms.

Which is why laws that prevent states form undercutting one another at the expense of the taxpayer might not be a bad thing? Or is that too big brother-y? I haven't thought through that but I'm interested in the arguments on both sides.

 

[wizards8507]

Which is why laws that prevent states form undercutting one another at the expense of the taxpayer might not be a bad thing? Or is that too big brother-y? I haven't thought through that but I'm interested in the arguments on both sides.

When states compete, citizens win. The up-front tax incentives that keep or attract businesses might have a negative effect on state revenues in and of themselves, but if the alternative is "the business leaves and we lose all of those jobs", it's still a net positive. I have no beef with programs like this at the state level.

 

[connor_in]

It’s important to put the questions about Clinton’s personal storage of government emails into the same context in which they are viewed by national-security professionals.

Clinton’s spokesperson vehemently and repeatedly claimed that press reports about her emails were “false.”

However, the most troubling allegation — that the emails on Clinton’s personal server were found to contain classified information — was not specifically refuted.

Probably because it’s not “false.”

Clinton tried to wiggle out of this problem by suggesting that the matter was overblown because the documents were not classified at the time she had custody and “various parts of the government” are “disagree[ing]” about whether the material should be classified. Not so.

In a random sampling of 40 emails, two inspectors general found that four individual emails, or 10 percent of the sample, contained classified information.

According to Office of Inspector General spokesperson Andrea Williams, those emails were “classified when they were sent and are classified now.”

Clinton’s spokesperson argued that Clinton couldn’t have been aware that the material was classified because it wasn’t specifically marked.

But that statement ignores how the process works. The reason government officials with security clearances are required to keep their correspondence on the appropriate government server is so the material can be vetted and classified prior to hitting “send” to an uncleared recipient.
The CIA goes to such great lengths to protect classified information that it even requires opposing counsel in legal cases to submit their briefs and exhibits for clearance before they can be filed.

Clinton’s argument is a sham. The reason the documents weren’t marked is because she never submitted them for clearance.

Moreover, Clinton should have been sufficiently aware of what was “classifiable.”

So the item of "only 4 emails were classified" really only stems from a random sample of 40 of her emails? Fab!

If the second bolded part is correct, than it would seem that she knows that items that weren't classified when she sent them and magically are classified now would most likely have been classified then too if following proper protocol

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

When states compete, citizens win. The up-front tax incentives that keep or attract businesses might have a negative effect on state revenues in and of themselves, but if the alternative is "the business leaves and we lose all of those jobs", it's still a net positive. I have no beef with programs like this at the state level.

If there were a federal rule enforcing states not be able to offer tax incentives, where would these companies go? Sure, they can leave the US if they want but I doubt they will find a much better tax climate.

As it stands, with the wide open market, states are incentivized to find loopholes or create them to attract/keep businesses. If these businesses aren't reinvesting in the community and instead, we continue watching the wealth percolate to the top, something has to change.

A free market works if it has moral operators at the top and we don't have that.

 

[GoIrish41]

If there were a federal rule enforcing states not be able to offer tax incentives, where would these companies go? Sure, they can leave the US if they want but I doubt they will find a much better tax climate.

As it stands, with the wide open market, states are incentivized to find loopholes or create them to attract/keep businesses. If these businesses aren't reinvesting in the community and instead, we continue watching the wealth percolate to the top, something has to change.

A free market works if it has moral operators at the top and we don't have that.

Excellent post! Reps!

 

[wizards8507]

If there were a federal rule enforcing states not be able to offer tax incentives, where would these companies go? Sure, they can leave the US if they want but I doubt they will find a much better tax climate.

As it stands, with the wide open market, states are incentivized to find loopholes or create them to attract/keep businesses. If these businesses aren't reinvesting in the community and instead, we continue watching the wealth percolate to the top, something has to change.

A free market works if it has moral operators at the top and we don't have that.

The bolded is a contradiction in terms. By definition, a truly open market doesn't have any loopholes. They're not a product of the free market, they're a product of the ways in which it isn't free. I agree that loopholes are problem but your proposed solution would make them worse, not better. As susceptible to corruption and mismanagement as state governments are, the federal government is even worse. The further removed you are from the people, the less accountable our political and business leaders become.

Short version: Yes, states are corrupt. But you can't solve that with federal intervention, as the feds are more corrupt.

Right now our country has an anti-business environment with pro-business loopholes. The only folks who have the resources and ability to access those loopholes are the cronies of the politicians. There's perverted incentivization all around. Cronies want loopholes so they donate to politicians who create the loopholes and screw all of those who are subject to the "everyone else" rules. Rather than screwing everyone equally by making them play by the "bad" rules, I'd rather see the loopholes made universal so they're not loopholes at all. If businesses are competing on a level playing field, competition will keep the market in check.

 

[GoIrish41]

The bolded is a contradiction in terms. By definition, a truly open market doesn't have any loopholes. They're not a product of the free market, they're a product of the ways in which it isn't free. I agree that loopholes are problem but your proposed solution would make them worse, not better. As susceptible to corruption and mismanagement as state governments are, the federal government is even worse. The further removed you are from the people, the less accountable our political and business leaders become.

Short version: Yes, states are corrupt. But you can't solve that with federal intervention, as the feds are more corrupt.

Product of a rigged system in which corporations win and citizens lose. I think your last point really depends on which state you are talking about.

 

[wizards8507]

Product of a rigged system in which corporations win and citizens lose.

What do you think a corporation is? You're kind of on track but I think you honestly fail to grasp the essence of the corporate structure. A corporation is nothing but a pass-through. Employees earn a wage and make products that consumers buy and profits are distributed to shareholders. Employees, consumers, and shareholders are citizens.

My bigger concern is not corporations versus citizens (since they're one in the same), it's one corporation versus another corporation and some citizens versus other citizens. Cronies get fat, whether they're politicians, community organizers, or CEOs.

Corporations Do Not Pay Taxes: They Can't, They're Not People - Forbes

Before you go off on a tangent about corporations not being "people," hopefully this analogy will make sense to you. "The Notre Dame football team" can't wear shoulder pads because "the Notre Dame football team" is not a person and therefore does not have shoulders on which to wear the pads. However, if I said "the Notre Dame football team wears shoulder pads," you would understand it to mean that every member of the team, who are people, wears shoulder pads. Like the Notre Dame football team, a corporation is not a person and therefore cannot pay taxes, but it is a collection of people who can pay taxes (and express free speech through campaign contributions or whatever else).

 

[GoIrish41]

What do you think a corporation is? You're kind of on track but I think you honestly fail to grasp the essence of the corporate structure. A corporation is nothing but a pass-through. Employees earn a wage and make products that consumers buy and profits are distributed to shareholders. Employees, consumers, and shareholders are citizens.

My bigger concern is not corporations versus citizens (since they're one in the same), it's one corporation versus another corporation and some citizens versus other citizens. Cronies get fat, whether they're politicians, community organizers, or CEOs.

Corporations Do Not Pay Taxes: They Can't, They're Not People - Forbes

Before you go off on a tangent about corporations not being "people," hopefully this analogy will make sense to you. "The Notre Dame football team" can't wear shoulder pads because "the Notre Dame football team" is not a person and therefore does not have shoulders on which to wear the pads. However, if I said "the Notre Dame football team wears shoulder pads," you would understand it to mean that every member of the team, who are people, wears shoulder pads. Like the Notre Dame football team, a corporation is not a person and therefore cannot pay taxes, but it is a collection of people who can pay taxes (and express free speech through campaign contributions or whatever else).

Perhaps my use of "corporations" was too broad and/or too vague. Let's change it to "the people who run the corporations" -- the 1%. They are reaping all of the rewards of increased productivity, and while their personal wealth climbs, the real wages of the "citizens" who are employed by the "corporations" pay for their bosses through picking up the tab (Pro-Austerity CEOs Rake in Taxpayer-Subsidized Pay - IPS).

Let’s talk about those “shareholders” you brought up. Who are they? Increasingly, they are the very same senior executives that I spoke about in the previous paragraph. (How the rich devoured the American corporation — and what we can do about it). So, while those 1 percenters are providing this valuable service to the “citizens”, they are doing so to further enrich themselves. Because they are allowed to deduct unlimited amounts of executive compensation from their taxes if it is based on “performance.” So, these guys have the system rigged so that their employer has an incentive to pay them ungodly amounts of money, because that money via stock options and other performance bonuses lowers the overall tax burden of the corporation. Lower tax burden, means more for shareholders – who are also the same corporate executives who are receiving massive salaries.

Lets not forget that these are the guys who as CEOs decided it was much better to ship all of the nation’s manufacturing jobs overseas to nations that allow borderline slave labor at the expense of the people who worked in their factories for decades. Who profited from this? The shareholders. They are the same people who made the decisions that hurt American workers and their families, and the communities they lived in.

Meanwhile, salary and benefits decline for typical workers. When I was a young man, the plan for all of us was to land a decent job, work hard, save enough money to send our kids to school someday, and then retire on a combination of Social Security (which is now at risk) and pension (Only 10 percent of Americans have pensions today). For a rapidly growing number of people, that is looking like a pipe dream. Real wages are dropping for everyone but the richest Americans, and it is only getting worse.

How did we get here? These same corporate bosses who have double dipped to excessive wealth, are not satisfied. They send their lobbyists to Washington to grease the skids for new and more complex ways to rig the system further in their favor. They throw bags of money at corrupt politicians to bend them to their will, and we wind up with laws that perpetuate the problems. Welcome to the new Gilded Age. We are regressing as a country when the American Dream is no longer within reach of the average citizen, and only within the grasp of the wealthy. Piece by piece, the things that made this country thrive are under attack or being stripped away bit by bit (Social Security, the social safety net, sensible minimum wage reform, union viability, public education, etc., etc. etc.) And God forbid any new helpful benefit becomes available to the average citizen without being met with fierce criticism, contempt or open political rebellion (see Obamacare).

I get your whole premise that corporations are people, but that is just word gymnastics to distract, to get everyone to take their eye off the ball. We are becoming an oligarchy. These subsidies are only a small piece of a big and horrible puzzle brought to you by the ultra rich dicks who are ruining this country for everyone.

 

[connor_in]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Prls6Iz3B3E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Wild Bill]

Perhaps my use of "corporations" was too broad and/or too vague. Let's change it to "the people who run the corporations" -- the 1%. They are reaping all of the rewards of increased productivity, and while their personal wealth climbs, the real wages of the "citizens" who are employed by the "corporations" pay for their bosses through picking up the tab (Pro-Austerity CEOs Rake in Taxpayer-Subsidized Pay - IPS).

Let’s talk about those “shareholders” you brought up. Who are they? Increasingly, they are the very same senior executives that I spoke about in the previous paragraph. (How the rich devoured the American corporation — and what we can do about it). So, while those 1 percenters are providing this valuable service to the “citizens”, they are doing so to further enrich themselves. Because they are allowed to deduct unlimited amounts of executive compensation from their taxes if it is based on “performance.” So, these guys have the system rigged so that their employer has an incentive to pay them ungodly amounts of money, because that money via stock options and other performance bonuses lowers the overall tax burden of the corporation. Lower tax burden, means more for shareholders – who are also the same corporate executives who are receiving massive salaries.

Lets not forget that these are the guys who as CEOs decided it was much better to ship all of the nation’s manufacturing jobs overseas to nations that allow borderline slave labor at the expense of the people who worked in their factories for decades. Who profited from this? The shareholders. They are the same people who made the decisions that hurt American workers and their families, and the communities they lived in.

Meanwhile, salary and benefits decline for typical workers. When I was a young man, the plan for all of us was to land a decent job, work hard, save enough money to send our kids to school someday, and then retire on a combination of Social Security (which is now at risk) and pension (Only 10 percent of Americans have pensions today). For a rapidly growing number of people, that is looking like a pipe dream. Real wages are dropping for everyone but the richest Americans, and it is only getting worse.

How did we get here? These same corporate bosses who have double dipped to excessive wealth, are not satisfied. They send their lobbyists to Washington to grease the skids for new and more complex ways to rig the system further in their favor. They throw bags of money at corrupt politicians to bend them to their will, and we wind up with laws that perpetuate the problems. Welcome to the new Gilded Age. We are regressing as a country when the American Dream is no longer within reach of the average citizen, and only within the grasp of the wealthy. Piece by piece, the things that made this country thrive are under attack or being stripped away bit by bit (Social Security, the social safety net, sensible minimum wage reform, union viability, public education, etc., etc. etc.) And God forbid any new helpful benefit becomes available to the average citizen without being met with fierce criticism, contempt or open political rebellion (see Obamacare).

I get your whole premise that corporations are people, but that is just word gymnastics to distract, to get everyone to take their eye off the ball. We are becoming an oligarchy. These subsidies are only a small piece of a big and horrible puzzle brought to you by the ultra rich dicks who are ruining this country for everyone.

In my experience, the bold is only true for "typical workers" who have NOT worked for big corporations. The friends and family I have who were fortunate enough to land employment at large corporations, those that are controlled by the 1%, like BP, ArcelorMittal, US Steel, United Airlines, CAT, etc were/are all paid far beyond the median salary. Most of them have pensions, all of them have a matching 401k, medical benefits, paid time off and great working conditions.

Maybe your experience has been different.

 

[wizards8507]

Perhaps my use of "corporations" was too broad and/or too vague. Let's change it to "the people who run the corporations" -- the 1%. They are reaping all of the rewards of increased productivity, and while their personal wealth climbs, the real wages of the "citizens" who are employed by the "corporations" pay for their bosses through picking up the tab (Pro-Austerity CEOs Rake in Taxpayer-Subsidized Pay - IPS).

Let’s talk about those “shareholders” you brought up. Who are they? Increasingly, they are the very same senior executives that I spoke about in the previous paragraph. (How the rich devoured the American corporation — and what we can do about it). So, while those 1 percenters are providing this valuable service to the “citizens”, they are doing so to further enrich themselves. Because they are allowed to deduct unlimited amounts of executive compensation from their taxes if it is based on “performance.” So, these guys have the system rigged so that their employer has an incentive to pay them ungodly amounts of money, because that money via stock options and other performance bonuses lowers the overall tax burden of the corporation. Lower tax burden, means more for shareholders – who are also the same corporate executives who are receiving massive salaries.

Lets not forget that these are the guys who as CEOs decided it was much better to ship all of the nation’s manufacturing jobs overseas to nations that allow borderline slave labor at the expense of the people who worked in their factories for decades. Who profited from this? The shareholders. They are the same people who made the decisions that hurt American workers and their families, and the communities they lived in.

Meanwhile, salary and benefits decline for typical workers. When I was a young man, the plan for all of us was to land a decent job, work hard, save enough money to send our kids to school someday, and then retire on a combination of Social Security (which is now at risk) and pension (Only 10 percent of Americans have pensions today). For a rapidly growing number of people, that is looking like a pipe dream. Real wages are dropping for everyone but the richest Americans, and it is only getting worse.

How did we get here? These same corporate bosses who have double dipped to excessive wealth, are not satisfied. They send their lobbyists to Washington to grease the skids for new and more complex ways to rig the system further in their favor. They throw bags of money at corrupt politicians to bend them to their will, and we wind up with laws that perpetuate the problems. Welcome to the new Gilded Age. We are regressing as a country when the American Dream is no longer within reach of the average citizen, and only within the grasp of the wealthy. Piece by piece, the things that made this country thrive are under attack or being stripped away bit by bit (Social Security, the social safety net, sensible minimum wage reform, union viability, public education, etc., etc. etc.) And God forbid any new helpful benefit becomes available to the average citizen without being met with fierce criticism, contempt or open political rebellion (see Obamacare).

I get your whole premise that corporations are people, but that is just word gymnastics to distract, to get everyone to take their eye off the ball. We are becoming an oligarchy. These subsidies are only a small piece of a big and horrible puzzle brought to you by the ultra rich dicks who are ruining this country for everyone.

This isn't even a political issue. It's day three of Principles of Finance with Carl Ackermann. Management has to be a shareholder or there's a disconnect between management's incentives and ownership's incentives. In the simplest possible corporation, if I own 100% of a company and you're my CEO, you have no reason to care about generating returns to me in the form of dividends and capital appreciation if your sole compensation is a fixed salary, particularly if you're well-entrenched with the Board of Directors and I have no recourse for mismanagement (i.e. I can't fire you). By compensating you based on performance and with ownership shares, I ensure that you have the same "skin in the game," and thus the same incentives, as I do. In other words, Bob Iger's ability to create wealth for himself in the form of DIS stock means he'll direct the company in such a way that he's also creating value for all of the other shareholders. While those at the top may have more shares than other individuals, pension funds and 401(k)s that hold DIS are enriched.

 

[GoIrish41]

This isn't even a political issue. It's day three of Principles of Finance with Carl Ackermann. Management has to be a shareholder or there's a disconnect between management's incentives and ownership's incentives. In the simplest possible corporation, if I own 100% of a company and you're my CEO, you have no reason to care about generating returns to me in the form of dividends and capital appreciation if your sole compensation is a fixed salary, particularly if you're well-entrenched with the Board of Directors and I have no recourse for mismanagement (i.e. I can't fire you). By compensating you based on performance and with ownership shares, I ensure that you have the same "skin in the game," and thus the same incentives, as I do. In other words, Bob Iger's ability to create wealth for himself in the form of DIS stock means he'll direct the company in such a way that he's also creating value for all of the other shareholders. While those at the top may have more shares than other individuals, pension funds and 401(k)s that hold DIS are enriched.

Of course it is a political issue. You must have missed the part about the CEOs working the politicians and writing the laws to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. But thanks for the lesson on how incentives work. There is compensation, and there is compensation. I think I read the other day that CEOs make 300 times more than the average worker, and in the 1950s, that number was something like 20 or 30 times more. (might not have the numbers exactly right, but don't have time to look it up). It is absurd, and everyday people are taking it on the chin.

 

[GoIrish41]

In my experience, the bold is only true for "typical workers" who have NOT worked for big corporations. The friends and family I have who were fortunate enough to land employment at large corporations, those that are controlled by the 1%, like BP, ArcelorMittal, US Steel, United Airlines, CAT, etc were/are all paid far beyond the median salary. Most of them have pensions, all of them have a matching 401k, medical benefits, paid time off and great working conditions.

Maybe your experience has been different.

In real inflation-adjusted dollars, salaries across the board have dropped since the recession for nearly every class of employees, except at the top. While I do not doubt what you say above, what if the Fortune 500 is McDonalds or WalMart? My guess is that those two companies employ more people than all of your list combined, and most of them don't have pensions, make shit wages, no medical benefits, and no matching 401K. A quick Google search tells me that the CEO of McDonalds makes the equivalent of $9200 an hour, compared to, what, $9 for the average employee. Walmart's CEO makes $16,826.92 an hour.

I found this chart on bloomberg.com -- Top CEO Pay Ratios - Bloomberg that breaks out how much more CEOs make than their average employees. It is a little disturbing, to be honest. It is worse because a lot of these guys are working (pretty successfully apparently) to rig the system with corrupt polticians to make those numbers even bigger. And all those poor schmucks who have to work for them and getting further and further behind.

 

[BGIF]

2016 Presidential Election Quiz

They've got a bunch of questions on issues, immigration, abortion, healthcare, foreign policy, environment, etc to match you with the 20 candidates. In addition to Yes and No responses, there is an Other Stances button. If you click on that you get about another half dozen choices to consider. You can also rate the importance of the issue from least to most with the slide bar to the left of the Yes/No buttons.

I'm a lifelong independent. I've voted for Democrats, Republicans, and Independent. I was stunned with my results.

83% Trump - I abhore him. He's actually at the bottom of my rankings regardless of party.
82% Bush - I've never been impressed with him. I liked his dad for the most part but thought his brother was terrible. Dynasty has no bearing on me. Earn it yourself.

I don't remember who rank next but there were several in the 70's and 60's.

72% Carson
66% Fiorina
64% Clinton

Two or three in the 50's

Sanders, Walker


Two in the 40's

42% Kasich - Dead last yet I was impressed with his responses at the first debate, his ability to get elected AND govern (work with the other side) in Ohio, and his part in a balanced congressional budget.

Without taking the test I would have had Trump and Kasich almost reversed. I don't know a lot about Kasich and want to turn off the sound when Trump speaks. He reminds me of Broderick Crawford playing Willy Stark in All the King's Men.

 

[RDU Irish]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Prls6Iz3B3E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

LMAO - 50,000 yoga emails, "If she were doing that much yoga she wouldn't need to wear pant suits"

 

[phgreek]

2016 Presidential Election Quiz

They've got a bunch of questions on issues, immigration, abortion, healthcare, foreign policy, environment, etc to match you with the 20 candidates. In addition to Yes and No responses, there is an Other Stances button. If you click on that you get about another half dozen choices to consider. You can also rate the importance of the issue from least to most with the slide bar to the left of the Yes/No buttons.

I'm a lifelong independent. I've voted for Democrats, Republicans, and Independent. I was stunned with my results.

83% Trump - I abhore him. He's actually at the bottom of my rankings regardless of party.
82% Bush - I've never been impressed with him. I liked his dad for the most part but thought his brother was terrible. Dynasty has no bearing on me. Earn it yourself.

I don't remember who rank next but there were several in the 70's and 60's.

72% Carson
66% Fiorina
64% Clinton

Two or three in the 50's

Sanders, Walker


Two in the 40's

42% Kasich - Dead last yet I was impressed with his responses at the first debate, his ability to get elected AND govern (work with the other side) in Ohio, and his part in a balanced congressional budget.

Without taking the test I would have had Trump and Kasich almost reversed. I don't know a lot about Kasich and want to turn off the sound when Trump speaks. He reminds me of Broderick Crwford playing Willy Stark in All the King's Men.

Rubio 96, Bush 95, Rand 80...Hillary 13%, Bernnie 8%

So...I'm pretty much Vanilla conservative, and I like criminals slightly better than whackjob socialists...but NO ONE would have guessed that.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

If there were a federal rule enforcing states not be able to offer tax incentives, where would these companies go? Sure, they can leave the US if they want but I doubt they will find a much better tax climate.

As it stands, with the wide open market, states are incentivized to find loopholes or create them to attract/keep businesses. If these businesses aren't reinvesting in the community and instead, we continue watching the wealth percolate to the top, something has to change.

A free market works if it has moral operators at the top and we don't have that.[/QUOTE]

"Moral" according to you, or according to whom? Highly subjective

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

If there were a federal rule enforcing states not be able to offer tax incentives, where would these companies go? Sure, they can leave the US if they want but I doubt they will find a much better tax climate.

As it stands, with the wide open market, states are incentivized to find loopholes or create them to attract/keep businesses. If these businesses aren't reinvesting in the community and instead, we continue watching the wealth percolate to the top, something has to change.

A free market works if it has moral operators at the top and we don't have that.[/QUOTE]

"Moral" according to you, or according to whom? Highly subjective

Huh? What does that have to do with the discussion?

 

[IrishinSyria]

What's coming out regarding HRC's e-mails isn't even remotely comparable to the Petraeus situation, and people who know that are playing on people's ignorance of what classified information is and how it is handled to score cheap political points.

As far as I can tell, what's coming up with HRC is that she had some information in her e-mails (not clear if sent or received) that should have had classification markings and thus not been on an unclassified network but did not. Note: this has NOTHING to do with her choosing to use a personal vs government e-mail account, by rule that type of information shouldn't be on either. Unfortunately, this sort of thing happens all the time. Not every declassifying authority interprets what should be protected and what shouldn't be the same way. One person might think that the gist of reporting with all source info removed is unclass while another person might think it's still protected. There are guidelines, but at least in the Army I can attest that not everyone really understood them. Add the fact that people are under a lot of pressure to make reports accessible and, well, sometimes information will cross servers. This happens fairly frequently, is frowned upon, but NEVER EVER EVER results in jail time. It's, like, just not a jail-able offense.

Petraeus, on the other hand, downloaded information off classified servers and handed it off to his (uncleared) mistress. It's a whole different ball game, the two situations aren't remotely comparable. This is why HRC will not face jail for this situation. Not because she's a VERY IMPORTANT PERSON, not because Obama's looking out for his own, but quite simply because it's something that people don't go to jail over. Period.

 

[phgreek]

What's coming out regarding HRC's e-mails isn't even remotely comparable to the Petraeus situation, and people who know that are playing on people's ignorance of what classified information is and how it is handled to score cheap political points.

As far as I can tell, what's coming up with HRC is that she had some information in her e-mails (not clear if sent or received) that should have had classification markings and thus not been on an unclassified network but did not. Note: this has NOTHING to do with her choosing to use a personal vs government e-mail account, by rule that type of information shouldn't be on either. Unfortunately, this sort of thing happens all the time. Not every declassifying authority interprets what should be protected and what shouldn't be the same way. One person might think that the gist of reporting with all source info removed is unclass while another person might think it's still protected. There are guidelines, but at least in the Army I can attest that not everyone really understood them. Add the fact that people are under a lot of pressure to make reports accessible and, well, sometimes information will cross servers. This happens fairly frequently, is frowned upon, but NEVER EVER EVER results in jail time. It's, like, just not a jail-able offense.

Petraeus, on the other hand, downloaded information off classified servers and handed it off to his (uncleared) mistress. It's a whole different ball game, the two situations aren't remotely comparable. This is why HRC will not face jail for this situation. Not because she's a VERY IMPORTANT PERSON, not because Obama's looking out for his own, but quite simply because it's something that people don't go to jail over. Period.

Petraeus was bad...no argument. I still think Hillary could be shown to be worse because I think there is, was, will continue to be a criminal conspiracy associated with this server. I think he cooperated, and got off light...I don't think she has been all that cooperative, and I think they acted to try and cover this up.

As Well...seems like someone removed the classified markers on at least one document/email. If true, there is simply no defense for that. Rather that gets on MRS. Clinton...I don't know.

I totally believe, no matter what her role, she isn't going to jail...The justice department would have to make that happen...and that ain't happenin.

Further, because justice holds the server...I doubt there will be any hope of knowing what was on it...they'll tell everyone they looked in a few months, and it was "clean", then we'll get the old news blah, blah blah...look something else shiny routine....and it'll work, for the most part.

Best anyone can hope for now is this torpedoes her presidential aspirations.

 

[IrishinSyria]

As Well...seems like someone removed the classified markers on at least one document/email. If true, there is simply no defense for that. Rather that gets on MRS. Clinton...I don't know.

Link? Because that sounds like there was a classified, presumably TS/SCI/TK/etc.. document floating around on an unclass network to begin with and somebody just scrubbed the markings.

I haven't seen any indication that that happened, which would require someone willfully copying a product off of one network onto a physical disk or drive and moving it to another. Rather, I've seen reports that there was information that is now classified in a few e-mails. That's potentially a lot less deliberate. That could be a low level State dude crushing red bulls to finish up one final unclassified memo who accidentally slips one line regarding a source or whatever into a memo because he's been looking at Secret stuff all day. All of a sudden, the whole thing should become classified, he sends it, nobody catches it because it's buried in the middle, etc...

 

[IrishinSyria]

Petraeus was bad...no argument. I still think Hillary could be shown to be worse because I think there is, was, will continue to be a criminal conspiracy associated with this server. I think he cooperated, and got off light...I don't think she has been all that cooperative, and I think they acted to try and cover this up.

As Well...seems like someone removed the classified markers on at least one document/email. If true, there is simply no defense for that. Rather that gets on MRS. Clinton...I don't know.

I totally believe, no matter what her role, she isn't going to jail...The justice department would have to make that happen...and that ain't happenin.

Further, because justice holds the server...I doubt there will be any hope of knowing what was on it...they'll tell everyone they looked in a few months, and it was "clean", then we'll get the old news blah, blah blah...look something else shiny routine....and it'll work, for the most part.

Best anyone can hope for now is this torpedoes her presidential aspirations.

So what's your theory of the conspiracy. Clinton set up an e-mail server (within regulations, as far as I can tell) that handled both her private and government e-mail. You think that this wasn't out of convenience, but rather to conceal the fact that she was engaged in large scale breaches of the rules governing the handling of classified material? And what's more, now that the Justice Department has the server, they're deliberately concealing evidence of this willful wrong doing? To what end? Clinton was one of the few original classifying authorities in the country, she had the authority, by law, to exercise her discretion to declassify information. (see, Executive Order 13526 sec. 3.1(d)).

I think using the server and crossing personal with work e-mails was bad judgment on her part and opened her up to political theater and FOIA nightmares, but I've seen zero evidence that anything she did posed a serious risk to national security. I know you'll say that I haven't seen the evidence because DOJ won't let me, but I'm skeptical.

 

[BGIF]

So what's your theory of the conspiracy. Clinton set up an e-mail server (within regulations, as far as I can tell) that handled both her private and government e-mail. You think that this wasn't out of convenience, but rather to conceal the fact that she was engaged in large scale breaches of the rules governing the handling of classified material? And what's more, now that the Justice Department has the server, they're deliberately concealing evidence of this willful wrong doing? To what end? Clinton was one of the few original classifying authorities in the country, she had the authority, by law, to exercise her discretion to declassify information. (see, Executive Order 13526 sec. 3.1(d)).

I think using the server and crossing personal with work e-mails was bad judgment on her part and opened her up to political theater and FOIA nightmares, but I've seen zero evidence that anything she did posed a serious risk to national security. I know you'll say that I haven't seen the evidence because DOJ won't let me, but I'm skeptical.

It was out of convenience and arrogance. Like Richard Nixon and the his tapes which Nixon keep for "convienece. He felt the rules didn't apply to him after it all it was his personnal conversations and she believes the rulses don't apply to her. It was her peronal mail which she intertwined with government information for her convenience. She felt she didn't have to turn the information over to a Congressional Inquiry. She stalled, obfuscated, and misrepresented what was on that server. She than chose to delete tens of thousands of documents which in her judgement were not classified nor government related.

I suppose that's why you slide in EO 13526 sec. 3.1 (d). She did have authority to declassify documents her department generated but let's be candid. She claimed she had no such documents. She swore that she never had such documents on the server to a judge. So now you bring up she could declassify documents?

POINT OF ORDER!

She was NOT SecState with EO 13526 authority when she deleted those tens of thousands of documents. She was a private citizen at the time she reviewed and deleted those documents.

I find it ironical that she who was involved with the Nixon investigation mimics Nixon's hubris and disregard for rules and laws. At least Nixon was in office and thus had some legal authority when he pulled his power play.

 

[phgreek]

Link? Because that sounds like there was a classified, presumably TS/SCI/TK/etc.. document floating around on an unclass network to begin with and somebody just scrubbed the markings.

The Spy Satellite Secrets in Hillary’s Emails - The Daily Beast

"It strains belief that anybody with clearances didn’t recognize that NSA information, which is loaded with classification markings, was signals intelligence, or SIGINT. It’s possible that the classified information found in Clinton’s email trove wasn’t marked as such. But if that classification notice was omitted, it wasn’t the U.S. intelligence community that took such markings away. Moreover, anybody holding security clearances has already assumed the responsibility for handling it properly."

Yea...thats what I said. Seems like reports were leaning toward someone having removed markers on at least one document before it got to Mrs. Clinton. Not sure if that gets on Mrs. Clinton.

I haven't seen any indication that that happened, which would require someone willfully copying a product off of one network onto a physical disk or drive and moving it to another.

..seems like all data levels here exceed sipernet, so I really don't know how the State department received it.

Rather, I've seen reports that there was information that is now classified in a few e-mails. That's potentially a lot less deliberate. That could be a low level State dude crushing red bulls to finish up one final unclassified memo who accidentally slips one line regarding a source or whatever into a memo because he's been looking at Secret stuff all day. All of a sudden, the whole thing should become classified, he sends it, nobody catches it because it's buried in the middle, etc...

...no, thats not what they are talking about...they are talking about satellite imagery and intel...stuff, IMHO, she should have known to question receiving via email on the spot.

 

[phgreek]

So what's your theory of the conspiracy. Clinton set up an e-mail server (within regulations, as far as I can tell) that handled both her private and government e-mail. You think that this wasn't out of convenience, but rather to conceal the fact that she was engaged in large scale breaches of the rules governing the handling of classified material? And what's more, now that the Justice Department has the server, they're deliberately concealing evidence of this willful wrong doing? To what end? Clinton was one of the few original classifying authorities in the country, she had the authority, by law, to exercise her discretion to declassify information. (see, Executive Order 13526 sec. 3.1(d)).

Executive Order 13526 sec. 3.1(d))...BGIF dealt with this..funny as hell how quick folks were to point out every possible OUT she could have...too much prior testimony to support this...even remotely. The woman said she had no classified on that machine, which was later amended after that was found to be untrue...she said she actually meant no classified prior to or during her use of it...ie it was all subsequently classified...SO NOW you believe what she meant was..."I decided it wasn't?". Uhm, NO.

That would be the hope of liberals wouldn't it...that the conspiracy was hair brained, and unbelievable. The conspiracy is really simple...it has to do with the cover up through destruction of incriminating documents. ie she realized due to Benghazi investigation she had things she shouldn't have had on that server, and tried to clean it up, which included destroying or ordering destroyed documents without disclosing the existence of those documents on a public server...conspiracy to "conceal documents from government computers," which carries a penalty of three years in jail per document. A conviction on that charge would disqualify her from holding public office again. A guy could hope.

I think using the server and crossing personal with work e-mails was bad judgment on her part and opened her up to political theater and FOIA nightmares, but I've seen zero evidence that anything she did posed a serious risk to national security. I know you'll say that I haven't seen the evidence because DOJ won't let me, but I'm skeptical.

...appreciate your expertise to determine national security risks (no sarcasm)...but seems like I'm ok with the intel community marking their documents, and people acting accordingly. With what we know she's got serious problems. But yea, she'll never get hung, and no third party will get a shot at that server...I think in the same breath they let her off they'll claim national security as the reason a third party can't review the server. Yea I believe she did more than...oh oops, had some stuff on there that wasn't classified at the time.

 

[IrishinSyria]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/12/meet-the-obama-appointees-who-could-sink-hillary/

If there's anything to find, it sounds like these guys will find it. However, if you read in-between the lines, there's nothing damning yet (though obviously, the perception of what happened is a different matter).

The most damaging information to come out of the federal inquiries of Clinton’s emails so far comes from McCullough. This week, the intelligence community’s inspector general dropped a bombshell by telling lawmakers that two classified emails discovered on the Clinton server contained “top secret” information, one of the highest security classifications.

According to the Washington Post, some of the classified information in the emails originated with the CIA. The materials include references to information taken from satellite images and electronic communications, which were deemed to be classified under National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency’s guidelines.

So that doesn't sound like raw product, which would indeed be easily recognizable to someone in the know, but rather someone summarizing what they'd seen from raw intel. That's where lines blur and mistakes get made.

Also, I think it's worth noting again that regardless of what the violation was, the move of classified info from one network to another has nothing to do with what e-mail she was using.

Re: the executive order, I'm not saying that it matters because she's invoking it. All I'm saying is that because she did have that power, it's not clear to me what her incentive would be to set up an elaborate system to work around the classification system. It's a different argument than the one made earlier, getting at her mental state.

So far, all that I see here is Congress dedicating huge amounts of Federal resources to investigating her on the thinnest grounds possible. I would say the odds of a Congressional investigation on this scale happening if she wasn't running for president aren't higher than 5%.

 

[GoIrish41]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/12/meet-the-obama-appointees-who-could-sink-hillary/

If there's anything to find, it sounds like these guys will find it. However, if you read in-between the lines, there's nothing damning yet (though obviously, the perception of what happened is a different matter).



So that doesn't sound like raw product, which would indeed be easily recognizable to someone in the know, but rather someone summarizing what they'd seen from raw intel. That's where lines blur and mistakes get made.

Also, I think it's worth noting again that regardless of what the violation was, the move of classified info from one network to another has nothing to do with what e-mail she was using.

Re: the executive order, I'm not saying that it matters because she's invoking it. All I'm saying is that because she did have that power, it's not clear to me what her incentive would be to set up an elaborate system to work around the classification system. It's a different argument than the one made earlier, getting at her mental state.

So far, all that I see here is Congress dedicating huge amounts of Federal resources to investigating her on the thinnest grounds possible. I would say the odds of a Congressional investigation on this scale happening if she wasn't running for president aren't higher than 5%.

I seriously doubt anything will come of this, other than political ammunition for her opponents during the election cycle. That said, this kind of stuff is what gives me pause about Hillary and Bill Clinton. It is almost like they are trying to create controversy with their actions. While some of the "scandal" surrounding them is certainly a product of aggessive opposition (the "vast right wing conspiracy"), why would she not just hand over the server from the start and move on? The same arguments could have been made three or four months ago, with more time between the incident and the election. Give your opponents more time to go full bore and burn people out on this story -- like they did with Benghazi -- so it is not an issue on everyone's mind closer to the election. The way she handled this is just not smart politics, and it is just one more in a long line of behaviours that paint her as a person who thinks the rules don't apply to her.