The Democrat Thread

[bmags]

related:

Bad lieutenant: American police brutality, exported from Chicago to Guantánamo

Exclusive: At the notorious wartime prison, Richard Zuley oversaw a shocking military interrogation that has become a permanent stain on his country. Part one of a Guardian investigation reveals he used disturbingly similar tactics to extract confessions from minorities for years – as a police officer in urban America

 

Some good follow-up by WBEZ on this:

http://www.wbez.org/news/concerns-raised-o...n-square-111635

 

There was also another. Definitely seems like Ackerman may have been hyping up one location and I agree that may be misleading the cause. Also the whole quote about how chicago crime reporters are helping cover up things because they agree with it just opened him up for his loose reporting. I like Ackerman, but if you are going into a local zone and act like you know something others don't, you better have been tactful.

[bmags]

Don't see him on much anymore, but soxtalk's own reported on this :

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/p...ory.html#page=1

[StrangeSox]

Good for him.

[StrangeSox]

Some good follow-up by WBEZ on this:

http://www.wbez.org/news/concerns-raised-o...n-square-111635

 

There was also another. Definitely seems like Ackerman may have been hyping up one location and I agree that may be misleading the cause. Also the whole quote about how chicago crime reporters are helping cover up things because they agree with it just opened him up for his loose reporting. I like Ackerman, but if you are going into a local zone and act like you know something others don't, you better have been tactful.

 

The follow up seems to be saying that it's even worse than one black site. If that's the case, it's still on the local reporters for not really covering this.

 

[bmags]

This email thing is another reason why I wish someone beside Clinton could emerge.

 

Considering the roll the US was on in the 90s, the lack of signature accomplishments by Clinton is embarrassing, especially environmentally.

[greg775]

This email thing is another reason why I wish someone beside Clinton could emerge.

 

Considering the roll the US was on in the 90s, the lack of signature accomplishments by Clinton is embarrassing, especially environmentally.

I just don't like the fact the only reason people say Hilly should be the next president is "she deserves it." This isn't the Queen of England honor. There should be no sense of entitlement with the office of president.

[bigruss]

I just don't like the fact the only reason people say Hilly should be the next president is "she deserves it." This isn't the Queen of England honor. There should be no sense of entitlement with the office of president.

Greg name one single person who has said this, and don't tell me you polled people on the streets of Lawrence. Give a legit source, heck anyone on Soxtalk, who has even said that.

[StrangeSox]

It's not "she deserves it" that anyone's saying, it's more "who else?" There doesn't appear to be any strong challengers on the Democrats' side. Though that could always change--Obama didn't look strong in early 2007--but there aren't strong up-and-comers like Obama was. And rightly or wrongly, most of the media/pundits seem to be expecting a repeat of the 2012 clown show before an inevitable defeat on the Republican side. The electoral map isn't very favorable to the GOP right now, and early polls have Hillary ahead of any potential challenger. It's only March 2015 though so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited March 3, 2015 by StrangeSox

[Jake]

This email thing is starting to look like it has legs.

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b78ba433af3...official-emails

 

Basically, it appears she had a server running in her very own home that hosted her email. This is not very common and most people who do this are those who are very concerned about privacy/government surveillance. That doesn't necessarily make it nefarious to do this, since most people who are doing these things are just techies and DIY types that like to have control. But that's not Hillary, obviously. Just having an email that is @myname.com is not the same as this - that's usually hosted on the server of the website host or alternately a common email provider like Google, Microsoft, etc.

 

Apparently, hosting her own email basically weaves right through a loophole in federal law. She does not have to turn over any of her emails because she owns them. I haven't seen anyone say that this broke the law, but it certainly violated the spirit of it. She could very well turn everything over, but it would be very difficult to verify that she has indeed done so since she has access to all of the hardware and software.

 

Somebody very clever was working for her to set this up. She may have wanted her own email address just because she likes to have her own things for continuity's sake or whatever. She's far from the first politician to conduct state business on a private email account. What's different is the server. The problem here is that whoever did it set her up to look very bad. She may have been approached with this idea and said to go ahead, this gives me cover for whatever I'm doing (this would only make sense if looking like she was hiding something was better than someone knowing what she was really doing). Or, someone on her team did this just assuming it was the best way to do it, and has given her a very guilty appearance in return.

 

With all of this said, if you wanted to be evil, this is not a great way to do it. You would simply encrypt the emails you send, making them inaccessible to anyone who doesn't have the password of either you or your recipient. Even better, she wouldn't have done these kinds of communications over email at all since it is an inherently insecure medium. If you want to evade detection, you use the s*** Ed Snowden was using. Highly encrypted, anonymized, ephemeral messaging. If she has done wrong here, she did it sloppily.

[bmags]

Reminder that Hillary's emails were released during her time as First Lady.

 

Just ridiculous to fly in the face of transparency like that.

[Jenksismyhero]

This email thing is starting to look like it has legs.

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b78ba433af3...official-emails

 

Basically, it appears she had a server running in her very own home that hosted her email. This is not very common and most people who do this are those who are very concerned about privacy/government surveillance. That doesn't necessarily make it nefarious to do this, since most people who are doing these things are just techies and DIY types that like to have control. But that's not Hillary, obviously. Just having an email that is @myname.com is not the same as this - that's usually hosted on the server of the website host or alternately a common email provider like Google, Microsoft, etc.

 

Apparently, hosting her own email basically weaves right through a loophole in federal law. She does not have to turn over any of her emails because she owns them. I haven't seen anyone say that this broke the law, but it certainly violated the spirit of it. She could very well turn everything over, but it would be very difficult to verify that she has indeed done so since she has access to all of the hardware and software.

 

Somebody very clever was working for her to set this up. She may have wanted her own email address just because she likes to have her own things for continuity's sake or whatever. She's far from the first politician to conduct state business on a private email account. What's different is the server. The problem here is that whoever did it set her up to look very bad. She may have been approached with this idea and said to go ahead, this gives me cover for whatever I'm doing (this would only make sense if looking like she was hiding something was better than someone knowing what she was really doing). Or, someone on her team did this just assuming it was the best way to do it, and has given her a very guilty appearance in return.

 

With all of this said, if you wanted to be evil, this is not a great way to do it. You would simply encrypt the emails you send, making them inaccessible to anyone who doesn't have the password of either you or your recipient. Even better, she wouldn't have done these kinds of communications over email at all since it is an inherently insecure medium. If you want to evade detection, you use the s*** Ed Snowden was using. Highly encrypted, anonymized, ephemeral messaging. If she has done wrong here, she did it sloppily.

 

Wouldn't it be more logical for her to run her own server like a small business versus grabbing a gmail or hotmail account? That way she can control the security as she sees fit (obviously not good enough)? I'm failing to see the big problem here, at least with respect to having her own email server and address. If she's using the private email for her job, obviously that's the huge problem here, not just the fact that she has it in the first place.

[bmags]

Wouldn't it be more logical for her to run her own server like a small business versus grabbing a gmail or hotmail account? That way she can control the security as she sees fit (obviously not good enough)? I'm failing to see the big problem here, at least with respect to having her own email server and address. If she's using the private email for her job, obviously that's the huge problem here, not just the fact that she has it in the first place.

 

All state business is supposed to be done through a .gov email address, which can be open to FOIA requests. She never even SET UP her .gov email account, so she was doing all business emails through this personal account.

[Jenksismyhero]

All state business is supposed to be done through a .gov email address, which can be open to FOIA requests. She never even SET UP her .gov email account, so she was doing all business emails through this personal account.

 

I understand, and that's obviously a huge problem. How does someone from the white house or sec of state not tell her that when they try to reach her?

 

I guess i'm asking why the server itself is a big deal versus how she used it.

[bmags]

I understand, and that's obviously a huge problem. How does someone from the white house or sec of state not tell her that when they try to reach her?

 

I guess i'm asking why the server itself is a big deal versus how she used it.

 

I think it's just a sign of "premeditation", that she would specifically not comply with those rules. And yes, that is a question, how did nobody force her to at least set one up?

[Jake]

Wouldn't it be more logical for her to run her own server like a small business versus grabbing a gmail or hotmail account? That way she can control the security as she sees fit (obviously not good enough)? I'm failing to see the big problem here, at least with respect to having her own email server and address. If she's using the private email for her job, obviously that's the huge problem here, not just the fact that she has it in the first place.

 

I mean, I'm the kind of person who has run an email/cloud server from my house for security purposes so I understand the pros of this kind of setup. Still, it's not at all common and could have easily been farmed out to some more trusted third party. It's not in and of itself damning, but it's awfully suspicious given the other context. I think most people like Hillary and generally like the Clinton brand, but I also think most people don't have a ton of trust in Hillary - even if her husband may be to blame for that. I don't think it will take a ton of stuff to get "swing voters" wary of her.

[farmteam]

It's not "she deserves it" that anyone's saying, it's more "who else?" There doesn't appear to be any strong challengers on the Democrats' side. Though that could always change--Obama didn't look strong in early 2007--but there aren't strong up-and-comers like Obama was. And rightly or wrongly, most of the media/pundits seem to be expecting a repeat of the 2012 clown show before an inevitable defeat on the Republican side. The electoral map isn't very favorable to the GOP right now, and early polls have Hillary ahead of any potential challenger. It's only March 2015 though so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What about someone like Tim Kaine or Cory Booker? I suppose Kaine is 57 so he isn't much of an "up-and-comer."

[Balta1701]

What about someone like Tim Kaine or Cory Booker? I suppose Kaine is 57 so he isn't much of an "up-and-comer."

Corey Booker is a huge financial industry/wall street booster and so he's already soured me on his potential. That leaves me little reason to consider voting for him in any primary

[StrangeSox]

I don't personally care for Booker, but I supposed he is a potential option for a strong primary run against Clinton again.

[bmags]

Booker/Clinton are redundant. Need a non-hawk.

[Balta1701]

Link

The Justice Department is preparing to bring criminal corruption charges against New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, alleging he used his Senate office to push the business interests of a Democratic donor and friend in exchange for gifts.

[bmags]

I'm so embarrassed Mark Kirk was part of the letter to Iran. This is just an embarrassing day as an American. What a childish and stupid display, and that's being generous. It's really toeing the line.

[bmags]

BTW writing email, if any of you live in Illinois, I suggest writing to Kirk today as well.

[Balta1701]

Obviously it's not appropriate but I don't know how you can expect any better from that party. They want a war that someone else takes the blame for.

[Reddy]

Petition to File Charges Against the 47 Senators...

 

Sign it, y'all. 16,000 sigs overnight. It's about damn time the American people actually stood for something again. I only wish the Dems had the balls to do what was necessary.

[Balta1701]

Petition to File Charges Against the 47 Senators...

 

Sign it, y'all. 16,000 sigs overnight. It's about damn time the American people actually stood for something again. I only wish the Dems had the balls to do what was necessary.

I'm not going to sign that.