News Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[DiracPool]

I personally am not very concerned with the Hillary e-mail scandal. It's not as if there was some malicious intent for personal gain here, except maybe the gain of laziness, from what I've gathered. Plus, what damage to the USA has come out of any of her hacked emails, if there were any?

I think all this hype around her self-discipline hides the larger question of why isn't there some sort of national security policing authority that monitors on a consistent basis how individuals with security clearance are exchanging that information. If this is an "honor system" type of thing then that is the problem, not Hillary Clinton. Some oversight or monitoring agency should have been in place to tell her that her email setup was not up to national security standards very soon after she started using a personal server.

If I were part of her campaign team I would get out in front of this instead of always playing on the defensive and make a statement that, under her presidency, this is all going to change and that, under the Clinton administration, there will be strict monitoring of how classified email is handled and exchanged. This seems pretty straightforward.

 

[russ_watters]

I personally am not very concerned with the Hillary e-mail scandal. It's not as if there was some malicious intent for personal gain here, except maybe the gain of laziness, from what I've gathered.

It certainly was not laziness: setting up a personal email server takes a lot of effort. Many pundits surmised (and I think many on PF agrees) that she did it for control: to avoid transparency.

Plus, what damage to the USA has come out of any of her hacked emails, if there were any?

I guess we don't really know if anyone ever successfully hacked it, nor would we be likely to find out. What "concerns" me isn't necessarily speculation about damage, it is the recklessness and spectacular selfishness when choosing personal protection from oversight over national security. That isn't the sort person I want as President.

I think all this hype around her self-discipline hides the larger question of why isn't there some sort of national security policing authority that monitors on a consistent basis how individuals with security clearance are exchanging that information. If this is an "honor system" type of thing then that is the problem, not Hillary Clinton. Some oversight or monitoring agency should have been in place to tell her that her email setup was not up to national security standards very soon after she started using a personal server.

My understanding is that there was: that people pointed it out repeatedly to her or her staff. The problem isn't a lack of oversight, it is a lack of teeth when dealing with a person who is above the law.

 

[DiracPool]

It certainly was not laziness: setting up a personal email server takes a lot of effort. Many pundits surmised (and I think many on PF agrees) that she did it for control: to avoid transparency.

Avoid transparency for what? For some nefarious purpose or just to say she could? As in she could get away with it simply because she's Hillary Clinton and there's no other reason other than that.

 

[russ_watters]

Back to that link:

Leave aside for the moment Trump’s policies, which in my opinion range from the unconstitutional to the un-American to the potentially catastrophic. At this point, it would be irresponsible to ignore the fact that Trump’s grasp on reality appears to be tenuous at best.”

We could replace Trump's name with anyone we don't like there, right? I'm reminded again of Obama's thoughtless (detail-less) promise to close the 'Gitmo detention facility in his first 100 days of office. His supporters - even many on PF who should have known better - thoughtlessly cheered it. But it just wasn't possible. So was he:
1. Crazy (out of touch with reality)?
2. Lying? (The typical campaign lie/promise most make that they have no intention of keeping).
3. Just hopelessly naive?

What is worse: a thoughless lie or a well planned-out lie?

 

[russ_watters]

The Inspector General thinks public unencrypted email back then was safe?

That isn't what I or he said: you are moving the goalposts.

We don't know what Powell sent, aren't those emails missing now?

Source? I don't think I've heard that accusation before.

 

[Evo]

That isn't what I or he said: you are moving the goalposts.

Sorry, then I didn't understand.

Source? I don't think I've heard that accusation before.

It wasn't an accusation, just what he said,

Powell says he doesn't have any of his State emails

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell says he doesn’t have any emails to turn over to the State Department.

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday, Powell responded to revelations that he used a personal email account, rather than a government one, when he was in charge of the State Department. Questions about his email use arose last week when it was disclosed that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a personal email account during her tenure.

“I don’t have any to turn over. I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files,” Powell said. “A lot of the emails that came out of my personal account went into the State Department system. They were addressed to State Department employees and state.gov domain, but I don’t know if the servers in the State Department captured those or not. “

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...n-email-state-department-115870#ixzz4Gch9wpFf

The last I read they hadn't been found but it wasn't a priority and the e-mails are thought to have been deleted some time ago for various reasons. But no one seems to be bothered by it. Go figure.

 

[Astronuc]

why isn't there some sort of national security policing authority that monitors on a consistent basis how individuals with security clearance are exchanging that information.

There is a system for handling CI. It's more or less done on an agency basis, but there are independent investigative agencies that provide support. It's covered under various Acts and Executive Orders (OEs).

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-01-05/pdf/E9-31418.pdf
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-08-07/pdf/95-19654.pdf

This could be a problem: "Agency heads shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining an effective program to ensure that access to classified information by each employee is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security." In the case of Clinton, she apparently didn't apply it to herself.

Sec. 7.1. Classified Information Procedures Act. Nothing in this order is intended to alter the procedures established under the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App. 1).

https://www.odni.gov/files/documents/ICD/ICD_704.pdf

ICD-704 mentions - The National Security Act of 1947, as amended; the Counterintelligence Enhancement Act of 2002, as amended; Executive Order (EO) 12333, as amended; EO 12958, as amended; EO 12968, EO 13467, and other applicable provisions of law.

 

[Astronuc]

Trump’s economic advisers are also his biggest donors
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trumps-economic-advisers-are-also-his-biggest-donors-226758#ixzz4GeUhnPPc

After spending months scolding his rivals for being beholden to their financial backers, Donald Trump unveiled an economic advisory council this week — and filled it with some of his biggest donors.

“He is following the path he has said was corrupt: Raising large sums of money and then giving donors special access,” said Trevor Potter, the president of the Campaign Legal Center and former chair of the Federal Election Commission.

Steve Deace, an influential conservative activist in Iowa and anti-Trump radio host, said he was not surprised that Trump was granting his biggest donors titles and insider access. But he was still angry.

“It is complete and total hypocrisy,” Deace said.

Meanwhile Slate charges, Donald Trump’s Website Won’t Let You Cancel Recurring Donations
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...won_t_let_you_cancel_recurring_donations.html

On Thursday, Mic confirmed that, no, there is no button to undo your recurring payment to the Trump campaign. You can’t delete the recurring payment. You can’t even delete your credit card information (you can update it, but it has to be with a different valid card number). So you just keep paying Trump’s campaign, we suppose, until the end of time.

Federal Election Commission spokesperson Christian Hilland told Mic that there’s nothing illegal about this per se, that is until a person’s automatic payments put her over the maximum contribution limit of $2,700.

 

[NTL2009]

Her public statements weren't part of the investigation. It is not illegal to make false statements to the public. It is illegal to lie to the FBI as part of a criminal investigation. According to Comey, she was truthful to the FBI, so that does not clear her in front of Congress or in the public domain. ...

My point was, the FBI should have asked he the questions regarding those public statements. That seems like a normal part of an investigation to me. If someone said X,Y,Z in public, they should be asked to validate that as part of the investigation. She would then have either needed to walk back the public statements she made, or lie to the investigators. It just seems to me that they left this open, and it seems an odd thing to leave open in such an intense investigation. It makes me suspicious that the exception was done for a reason (Comey did not want to be in the position of taking out a candidate).

I'm not sure that is the case. I believe they had the hard-drives from the servers, and they retrieved and reviewed the materials themselves. Clinton did sent email to the Department of State. ...

As I understand it, she turned over paper copies, and deleted all the emails from the server. It was only later that the FBI was able to piece together the emails from some parts of the server that the deletion didn't touch.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...fact-sheet-hillary-clintons-email-controvers/

It was only then that Mrs. Clinton instructed her aides to cull through roughly 60,000 emails that had passed through the server and turn over those involving official business. Those amounted to roughly half of the total.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-emails-comey-225121

bold mine

“It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related emails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server. It is also likely that there are other work-related emails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

Wouldn't any other US citizen be charged with obstruction of justice, interfering with a Federal investigation, or some other related charge (I am not a lawyer)? Recall that Martha Stewart went to jail for interfering with the investigation of her stock trade, not for insider trading (I don't think they ever proved that - intent is tough to prove).

I think using public e-mail is less safe than using a private encrypted server. I feel it's comparable, apparently we disagree.

The Inspector General thinks public unencrypted email back then was safe?
...

Evo, I think what russ is saying is, you took his private email is 'less safe' than public email reference and turned it into 'so public email is safe?' He didn't say that public email was safe, just likely that public is safer than her private server. I think that report indicates that the public servers have very sophisticated protection and monitoring, far more than what was used by the administrator of the HRC private server .

I personally am not very concerned with the Hillary e-mail scandal. It's not as if there was some malicious intent for personal gain here, except maybe the gain of laziness, from what I've gathered. ...

Avoid transparency for what? For some nefarious purpose or just to say she could? As in she could get away with it simply because she's Hillary Clinton and there's no other reason other than that.

As was mentioned, it sure isn't laziness to hire a private company to maintain a private server. That was a deliberate action.

Without "clear evidence" of intent, we can still make Occam's Razor type theories. How about that pesky little FOI Act? I think a reasonable person could be suspicious that this was done, and thousands of emails deleted, and devices cleaned so tthat those emails could not be produced to comply with a FOIA request. What else would Occam propose?

-NTL2009

 

[Astronuc]

Five-Thirty-Eight ongoing analysis of 2016 presidential election. It will be updated as new data are collected.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

 

[mheslep]

Comey chose his words/statements carefully and did not address whether he believe Clinton had lied to, or otherwise mislead, Congress or public.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-testimony-clinton-email-225224#ixzz4Gai7MgTE

Clinton's statements about the emails are certainly troubling. As Secretary of State, it was part of her job requirements to know and protect classified information. She may not have intentionally sent classified information to those who should not receive it, but the information was maintained on an unsecure server, so in that sense it was a breach of protocol.
...

Comey stated he had no evidence that Clinton lied to the FBI in her interview. With regard to Clinton statements to the public and Congress, Comey stated the FBI had not investigated.

"Not to my knowledge. I don't think there's been a referral from Congress,” Comey responded,

Clinton's statement last Sunday, putting words in Comey's mouth, was clearly false.

"Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I've said is consistent with what I have told the American people."

 

[mheslep]

He has some good experience.

Powell too has never been elected to any office.

 

[mheslep]

Five-Thirty-Eight ongoing analysis of 2016 presidential election. It will be updated as new data are collected.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

As of July 30, 5-3-8 had Trump a slight favorite. A week later and Trump collapsed. Good grief, now even Georgia is in play.

 

[mheslep]

Americans Really Dislike Trump, Clinton. So Why Aren't Third Parties Doing Better?

I don't think Johnson so far is serious about the job or seriously considers what he says on the issues. But in my view he is not corrupt, has no notion that he is entitled to the job as is/does Clinton. I'd vote for Johnson over Clinton.

 

[axmls]

I don't think Johnson so far is serious about the job or seriously considers what he says on the issues.

I wouldn't say it's so much about being serious about the job as it is that he pretty much knows his campaign doesn't matter that much since even he would probably admit his chances of winning are incredibly small. It's not like him and Weld aren't qualified for the presidency (I personally would argue that they're more qualified than the other choices). As for the issues, he's really pushing to bring (moderate) libertarianism to the mainstream. One of his campaign talking points is that "most people are libertarians; they just don't know it yet."

 

[Astronuc]

Powell too has never been elected to any office.

True, but he has some good diplomatic experience as Secretary of State, and executive experience as National Security Advisor (1987–1989), as Commander of the U.S. Army Forces Command (1989) and as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989–1993). He kind of like George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower.

It would have been great if he'd been HW's VP in 1992. Had Bush had a second term with Powell as VP, the country would have been a lot better off now, IMO.

 

[mheslep]

I wouldn't say it's so much about being serious about the job as it is that he pretty much knows his campaign doesn't matter that much since even he would probably admit his chances of winning are incredibly small.

I understand your point and disagree. I saw him [Johnson] interviewed last month with plenty of time for answers: i) his understanding of his chances were quite sincere and well considered, ii) his answers on policy were incoherent, as in huh? incoherent. Still, what I did not see him do in that interview was lie, evade, talk about how the opposition party was his enemy, demonize members of his own party during the general election, nor descend into some narcissistic rant about himself. So yes I would still vote for him in a Clinton v Johnson race.

It's not like him and Weld aren't qualified for the presidency (I personally would argue that they're more qualified than the other choices). As for the issues, he's really pushing to bring (moderate) libertarianism to the mainstream. One of his campaign talking points is that "most people are libertarians; they just don't know it yet."

I think Sen Rand Paul did a more serious job of attempting to take libertarianism mainstream in the Presidential race. For instance, the open borders policy that Johnson openly promotes is not libertarian, open borders is at best anarchic, and worse than anarchic inside a system with heavy state benefits. I liked Paul in the primary. He lost.

 

[Evo]

Please remember that this is Current News Events and if your post disappears, it probably didn't meet the rules.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/must-read-current-events-guidelines.113181/

 

[axmls]

For instance, the open borders policy that Johnson openly promotes

I guess that would depend on how loosely you define "open borders."

From his official campaign site:

Candidates who say they want to militarize the border, build fences, and impose punitive measures on good people, ground their position in popular rhetoric, not practical solutions.

Governors Johnson and Weld believe that, instead of appealing to emotions and demonizing immigrants, we should focus on creating a more efficient system of providing work visas, conducting background checks, and incentivizing non-citizens to pay their taxes, obtain proof of employment, and otherwise assimilate with our diverse society.

Making it simpler and more efficient to enter the United States legally will provide greater security than a wall by allowing law enforcement to focus on those who threaten our country, not those who want to be a part of it.

Not exactly open borders. He speaks a lot about making it easier to immigrate, but the only quote from him about open borders comes from 2001.

That said, I think a lot of it is that Johnson isn't that great of a speaker. He mumbles a lot and struggles to get to the point. Honestly, Bill Weld should be on the top of the ticket, in my opinion. Virtually the same credentials, but more well-spoken.

Edit by Mod: you forgot to link to his site, please link to it now, thank you.

 

[Astronuc]

From his official campaign site:

Governors Johnson and Weld believe that, instead of appealing to emotions and demonizing immigrants, we should focus on creating a more efficient system of providing work visas, conducting background checks, and incentivizing non-citizens to pay their taxes, obtain proof of employment, and otherwise assimilate with our diverse society.

Making it simpler and more efficient to enter the United States legally will provide greater security than a wall by allowing law enforcement to focus on those who threaten our country, not those who want to be a part of it.

https://www.johnsonweld.com/immigration

On the issues - http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Gary_Johnson_Immigration.htm

https://www.johnsonweld.com/issues

 

[jim hardy]

Please remember that this is Current News Events and if your post disappears, it probably didn't meet the rules.

no problem. I've been thrown out of better places.

 

[phinds]

no problem. I've been thrown out of better places.

me too

 

[Evo]

no problem. I've been thrown out of better places.

 

[mheslep]

Not exactly open borders. He speaks a lot about making it easier to immigrate, but the only quote from him about open borders comes from 2001.

Yes, open borders, or in Johnson's words, "No limit at all." Johnson has said he wants no quotas on legal immigration, is unhappy with the government imposed number of a million plus admitted each year: "No limit at all" on US legal immigration (see starting at 5:20 here). Elsewhere, as you cite, their platform does reference "background checks", but, in a no limit system for the whole world, checks are meaningless. He also mocks the idea of improved border security, which leaves the door open (as now) for the few that can't con their way in legally under his system. He's meandering through fringe anarchism, in which the theory is that the only forces at play in immigration are the supply and demand for jobs. This position has been ridiculous going back at least to when the marauding Huns pushed Goths looking for safety into Roman territory 1700 years ago.

 

[RonL]

no problem. I've been thrown out of better places.

Should I be feeling down ? I have never been thrown out of anything

 

[phinds]

Should I be feeling down ? I have never been thrown out of anything

Well clearly you've led a very dull life

 

[Astronuc]

It is astounding that 50 GOP national security officials are negative on Trump, or rather, it is astounding that the GOP would nominate someone of whom so many in the GOP are negative.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-national-security-trump-reckless-000000096.html

“None of us will vote for Donald Trump,” http://hsrd.yahoo.com/RV=1/RE=1471921169/RH=aHNyZC55YWhvby5jb20-/RB=/RU=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5ueXRpbWVzLmNvbS9pbnRlcmFjdGl2ZS8yMDE2LzA4LzA4L3VzL3BvbGl0aWNzL25hdGlvbmFsLXNlY3VyaXR5LWxldHRlci10cnVtcC5odG1sAA--/RS=%5EADAuxYRbi5Fzzthldpi.8XGRaWnUmc- . “From a foreign policy perspective, Donald Trump is not qualified to be President and Commander in Chief. Indeed, we are convinced that he would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.

“Most fundamentally,” the letter states, “Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President. He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.”
. . . .
Those who signed the letter include former Homeland Security Secs. Thomas Ridge and Michael Chertoff; former NSA and CIA Director Michael V. Hayden; ex-Deputy Secretaries of State John D. Negroponte and Robert B. Zoellick; and Eric S. Edelman, who served as Vice President Dick Cheney’s national security adviser and was a top aide to Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Unbelievable!

 

[mheslep]

it was nothing pre-calculated on Hillary's part.

Afterwards, the story told to the public about the Bhengazi attack being caused by rage at an internet video instead of "an Al-Qaeda like group" (her private words) was false and pre-calculated, IMO the reason being that two months before the US election the administration needed to continue to show what it had been saying, that it had terrorism "on the run".

Also, Clinton voted for the Iraq invasion, and GW Bush is retired.

 

[Evo]

Also, Clinton voted for the Iraq invasion, and GW Bush is retired.

Well, let's tell the whole story.

Listening to her rationale Wednesday night, I didn’t know whether she was telling the truth. I had written many Slate columns about the Iraq debate and the ensuing war, but I couldn’t remember the details of then-Sen. Clinton’s position. Looking up those details now, I have come to a conclusion about the rationale she recited at the New Hampshire town hall: Hillary was telling the truth.

This fact doesn’t vindicate her vote back in 2002—far from it. But it does take some of the sting out of Sanders’ attack. In short, her vote on Iraq, under the circumstances, should not be seen as the indicator of her stance or judgment on armed intervention generally.

The evidence is clear. On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or “with any allies we can muster.” Such a course, she said, “is fraught with danger,” in part because “it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us,” legitimizing invasions that Russia might launch against Georgia, India against Pakistan, or China against Taiwan.

“So,” she continued, “the question is, how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States—and, at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations.”

She went on to say that there was “no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma” and that “people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions.” But, she concluded, “I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution” that calls “for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded” from Saddam.

“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”

Then came, from today’s vantage, the key passage: “Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first … I take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely—and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause—I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go away with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”

She added, “This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. … My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose.” A vote for the resolution, she argued, “is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...n_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html

One hell of a smart woman, one that will make a great President.

 

[phinds]

Trump suggested today that gun nuts assassinate Hillary and/or her Supreme Court nominees. He was vague about which. His surrogates are having their usual difficulties in "walking it back" on the talk shows. Their claim, basically, is that it was just a joke and/or he was signalling unity with fans of the 2nd ammendment. The Secret Service is probably not amused. As one of the talking heads pointed out, if someone in the hall outside where he was speaking has made that "joke", that person would likely now be answering questions posed by large men with guns and frowns.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

among other statements in the article:

Representative Eric Swalwell, Democrat of California, wrote on Twitter that the Secret Service should investigate Mr. Trump for making a death threat against Mrs. Clinton: “Donald Trump suggested someone kill Sec. Clinton. We must take people at their word.”

This comes at a time when those around Trump thought they had FINALLY convinced him to stay on message and quit creating self-inflicted wounds. That's not working out so well for them.