Do MC and I really have different gripes with Trump?

Not for the faint of heart!
Canyon
500 post plus club
Posts: 516
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:29 pm
Location: CO

Re: Do MC and I really have different gripes with Trump?

Postby Canyon » Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:55 pm

WheresMyWhite wrote:
Chancellor wrote:Tarlo--You say you have facts and truth on your side. Do you honestly believe that the people who support Trump are doing so blindly and don't think exactly what you just said. Do you honestly think they don't think they have facts and truth on THEIR SIDE? Mind you I am not saying either side has facts and truths. But pointing out that BOTH sides think they have facts and truths.


This yes. Both sides in an argument/disagreement often feel they are in the right and have facts, evidence, truth to back them up. Statistics can often be made to prove just about anything. One person's truth is not all people's truth.


I agree. I worked in a lab a long time ago. We used to say, "Statistics don't lie; statisticians do."

I can't stand Trump and don't understand how anyone can defend him. During the campaign (and now) I was troubled by his attitude towards women, gays, minorities, etc., and could not understand his open admiration for Putin. But hey, I'm old and remember practicing duck and cover in elementary school during the Cuban missile crisis.

I voted reluctantly for HC, believing that our democracy had a better chance of survival with her in office.

Literiding
Herd Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:53 pm

Re: Do MC and I really have different gripes with Trump?

Postby Literiding » Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:25 pm

Part 1 - I had too many URLs which were necessary for documentation.

Tarlo Farm wrote:Except we have facts and truth on our side.


Are we talking politics or religion?

There is a timely article on Scientific American regarding people’s propensity to believe Fake News (propaganda?) regardless of their political philosophy:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/be ... t-reasons/

But there were a number of issues with the Clinton candidacy in my mind, one of the early ones was the Uranium One transaction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_One

While this certainly not any more serious that some of the deals Trump has been involved in, that a serving Secretary of State’s family foundation received a $145 million dollar one time donation from possible “foreign agent” for one of the participants in the deal is a bit shaky. I recommend those interested do some searching on “uranium one scandal.”

END PART ONE
Last edited by Literiding on Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Literiding
Herd Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:53 pm

Re: Do MC and I really have different gripes with Trump?

Postby Literiding » Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:26 pm

PART TWO

Then there was the infamous email server. Since I was at one time deeply involved in the handling of highly classified “traffic,” a primitive form of email but highly proprietary to the U.S. government. It is closely monitored and controlled to protect the information it handles. So I had some expertise in the subject and found her actions highly reprehensible. Because the discussion of classified material tends to get a bit geeky, I’ve tried to explain the implied seriousness of the email insecurity. Unfortunately, the discussion gets a bit long. To provide a starting point, please watch this YouTube video:

https://youtu.be/gzFPpHT17_E (about two minutes)

Rep Chaffetz R-Utah was Chairman House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in 2016, and the Inspector General of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) Mr. McCullough is testifying. The video was uploaded on July 7, 2016, about four months before the presidential election in November.

The source I'm using for evaluating the improprieties in the operation of the server is President Obama's Executive Order (EO) 13526-Classified National Security Information, dated December 29, 2009. Ms. Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State from 2009 until 2013 so the rules in President Obama’s EO would apply to her. The URL was, but it is now dead, the infamous Error 404 is returned:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... nformation

The Executive Order is not immensely long, the PDF I downloaded at the time is 63 pages. The Executive Order defines the U.S. National information security information, marking and handling. What follows is an "executive summary" that I've put together with some additional explanatory information. Hollywood has so fictionalized the U.S. system of handling information security that I think it would be useful to explain exactly how the system works.

All governmental information is either “Unclassified” or “Classified.” If information is Classified, it is classified at one of three levels of Classification, “Confidential,” “Secret,” or “Top Secret.” Unclassified governmental information must be protected by “best practices” as laid out by the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology Publications ( https://csrc.nist.gov ). If information is Classified, it is protected by policies and procedures developed by the National Security Agency (NSA) drawing upon the authority of a Presidential Executive Order. For classified documents, there is a large header and footer stating the highest classification contained in the document. In addition, each paragraph is marked with the highest classification of the information in the paragraph. For example:

1. (U) This how an unclassified paragraph is marked.

2. (S) This how a Secret paragraph is marked and so on.

To remove these markings when editing is unlawful. From various sources, many of the documents had their security markings completely removed. That doesn’t declassify them, the material remains classified because the originating organization is the only party that can declassify information it promulgated.

Classification Levels - from least damaging to the most damaging with hypothetical examples:

Unclassified --

1. Not discussed in the EO but is clearly marked on electronic communications in my day for subjects that were unclassified. Anything that wasn't marked with a classified marking was also assumed to be unclassified. Most communications are unclassified and include ship manning, orders to individuals to change duty stations, repair activities, ordering supplies, parts etc.

For Official Use Only --

1. Not discussed in the EO, but when I was handling electronic communications, things like medical records (in the days before HIPAA), discipline adjudication, or official business of the Navy that was not for general release such as contract negotiations were marked for Official Use Only.

Confidential --

1. (From EO) Shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

2. Things that would be classified Confidential include ship's schedules, short term communication plans, operations that will be complete within a short time period as long as the text didn't include objectives, higher classified objectives or evaluations of the operation's success.

Secret --

1. (From EO) Shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

2. Things that would be classified Secret would include sensitive ship schedules such as port visits and operations that may provoke international interest, weapon capabilities and limitations, combat readiness of units and weapons, tactics and tactical thought, Standing Orders about operations of fleet units, etc.

Top Secret --

1. (From EO) Shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

2. War plans, rules of engagement, pre-planned responses to the activities of opponents, experimental weapons, weapon developments, etc. would be Top Secret.

There are a few modifiers to the normal classification markings.

1. Special Access Programs which are discussed in the EO in section 4.3. Special Access Programs are usually referred to as being a "compartmented" project. The gent in the video was talking about very tightly held and strictly limited Special Access Programs that had been stripped of their marking and sent to Ms. Clinton on her personal email sever which located in her closet at her personal residence. Here is a brief extract about Special Access Programs from the EO:


Sec. 4.3. Special Access Programs. (a) Establishment of special access programs. Unless otherwise authorized by the President, only the Secretaries of State, Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, or the principal deputy of each, may create a special access program. For special access programs pertaining to intelligence sources, methods, and activities (but not including military operational, strategic, and tactical programs), this function shall be exercised by the Director of National Intelligence. These officials shall keep the number of these programs at an absolute minimum, and shall establish them only when the program is required by statute or upon a specific finding that:
(1) the vulnerability of, or threat to, specific information is exceptional; and
(2) the normal criteria for determining eligibility for access applicable to information classified at the same level are not deemed sufficient to protect the information from unauthorized disclosure.
(b) Requirements and limitations.
(1) Special access programs shall be limited to programs in which the number of persons who ordinarily will have access will be reasonably small and commensurate with the objective of providing enhanced protection for the information involved.



a. Past examples of a Special Access Program include the WWII "Manhattan" project which was the development of the Atomic Bomb. The development of the F-117 "stealth" fighter was a closely held secret that was "compartmented" as a Special Access Program. Most Special Access programs have an unclassified code word associated with them which allows references to a "compartment" without limiting the distribution of the communication.

b. An area of Special Access that I know of, but have no personal experience is that involving intelligence gathering. Information forwarded to the U.S. from operatives and/or individuals within another government are usually very closely held secrets to protect the identity of the "spies" supplying the information.

c. A "Black" program is one who's name is "blacked out" in a budget request. To my knowledge, all Special Access programs that require money be budgeted in a Federal Government budget request or process is blacked out and is referred to as a "Black Program."

d. A "compartment" can be applied to any classification level, but usually is Top Secret or rarely Secret.

e. ORCON would be a type of Compartmented Information.

2. "Restricted Data" and "Formally Restricted Data" are communication caveats to protect the information of nuclear power and/or nuclear weapons.

Secretary of State is a "Head of Agency" or sometimes shortened to Depart Head. The EO sets forth the following responsibilities for the Agency Head:


Sec. 5.4. General Responsibilities. Heads of agencies that originate or handle classified information shall:

(a) demonstrate personal commitment and commit senior management to the successful implementation of the program established under this order; . . .



Based on the video, I would say there was a major failure in meeting her responsibilities not to mention the very real possibility that the information was compromised because the email server was hacked at least once, and on the public level, civilian experts feel that other hacks were "likely." As a recent up date, in June of 2018, it was reported that “Foreign Actors” gained access to the Clinton email server. That would technically make the actions “treasonous.” Good search terms are “Clinton email server foreign actors,” you’ll get multiple hits in your search engine.


Sec. 5.5. Sanctions.
(a) If the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office finds that a violation of this order or its implementing directives has occurred, the Director shall make a report to the head of the agency or to the senior agency official so that corrective steps, if appropriate, may be taken.
(b) Officers and employees of the United States Government, and its contractors, licensees, certificate holders, and grantees shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently:
(1) disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under this order or predecessor orders;
(2) classify or continue the classification of information in violation of this order or any implementing directive;
(3) create or continue a special access program contrary to the requirements of this order; or
(4) contravene any other provision of this order or its implementing directives.
(c) Sanctions may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation.
(d) The agency head, senior agency official, or other supervisory official shall, at a minimum, promptly remove the classification authority of any individual who demonstrates reckless disregard or a pattern of error in applying the classification standards of this order.



As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton worked directly for the President, so it was the President's responsibility to enforce the EO that one of his Agency Heads failed to follow. The Attorney General is also sucked into the morass of "non-enforcement" by paragraph 6.2.(C):


(c) The Attorney General, upon request by the head of an agency or the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, shall render an interpretation of this order with respect to any question arising in the course of its administration.



END PART TWO

Literiding
Herd Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:53 pm

Re: Do MC and I really have different gripes with Trump?

Postby Literiding » Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:28 pm

PART THREE

Now watch the video again: https://youtu.be/gzFPpHT17_E

Additional info:

https://youtu.be/6UQtPzW850k

Most of the video above demonstrates the Congressmen don’t understand that the President grants the Secretary of State’s security clearance and no governmental bureaucrat alive would caught publicly criticizing his decisions.

Conclusions:

So having done my due diligence, I concluded that the presidential candidate had:

Possibly accepted a bribe. The lack of transparency around the Clinton Foundation clouds the issue but if the transaction isn’t illegal, it certainly looks unethical.

Operated a personal email server in her home with what appears to be the felonious intent to evade Freedom of Information Act requests. The server handled principally the government business of the Secretary of State and was neither configured nor operated in accordance with the rules governing the handling of U.S. government unclassified information.

The server processed classified material of various classifications including highly sensitive tightly controlled information of a unknown type.

The information processed on the server was compromised because of the negligent way the email server was operated. In 2016, there were several technical publications that claimed the sever had been “hacked” by foreign powers. That classified material was seen by people without a clearance which includes all foreign personnel. Of note, the tech that set the server up in the closet in the Clinton home was a foreign resident. The act of negligence could be serious enough to qualify as treason if one of the so-called “foreign actors” is not a member of a U.S. alliance.

She did not discharge her duties of handling Classified U.S. information and insuring her subordinates in the Department of State were properly trained and monitored as required by the EO. Not a good recommendation for a future president.

That public testimony by people who are charged with protecting the secrets of the U.S. did not result in a “due process” procedure to establish the guilt or innocence of Ms. Clinton and/or her staff would lend credence to the charge there was “a swamp that needs draining.” Given that, depending on the source, between 30 and 40 percent of the members of Congress are trained lawyers, that no action has been taken on these accusations adds even more credence to the charge there is a conspiracy protecting members of the government.

So I concluded that I had to vote against her.

Tarlo Farm
500 post plus club
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:20 pm
Location: NW Michigan

Re: Do MC and I really have different gripes with Trump?

Postby Tarlo Farm » Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:32 am

How is it the lengthy investigation into all the above failed to find her guilty of the charges you present? And by these rightly rigorous standards, you of course, couldn't have voted for Trump, so you didn't vote? Or voted for Stein or Johnson?

WheresMyWhite
500 post plus club
Posts: 930
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:37 pm

Re: Do MC and I really have different gripes with Trump?

Postby WheresMyWhite » Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:13 pm

Tarlo Farm wrote:How is it the lengthy investigation into all the above failed to find her guilty of the charges you present? And by these rightly rigorous standards, you of course, couldn't have voted for Trump, so you didn't vote? Or voted for Stein or Johnson?


Just because an "investigation" didn't find HC guilty doesn't mean that someone couldn't feel that she was 'guilty'. In a court of law, prosecution/plaintiff must meet a defined burden of proof. In the mind and opinion of an individual, the burden of proof may be different (how often do you see someone being represented as guilty or not guilty in the court of public opinion and that verdict may be different than in a court of law.)

I didn't vote for either main stream political party either. Frankly, without going to look, I don't recall right off hand who I did vote for but also knew that my candidate more than likely did not have a chance of winning the election. I believe in exercising my right to vote for whomever I choose. I also personally believe that unless the populace doesn't stand up and make a statement via the ballot box, our current two party system will continue to prevail.

Chancellor
Site Admin
Posts: 838
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 8:26 am

Re: Do MC and I really have different gripes with Trump?

Postby Chancellor » Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:24 pm

WheresMyWhite wrote:
I didn't vote for either main stream political party either. Frankly, without going to look, I don't recall right off hand who I did vote for but also knew that my candidate more than likely did not have a chance of winning the election. I believe in exercising my right to vote for whomever I choose. I also personally believe that unless the populace doesn't stand up and make a statement via the ballot box, our current two party system will continue to prevail.


HERE HERE!

Tarlo Farm
500 post plus club
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:20 pm
Location: NW Michigan

Re: Do MC and I really have different gripes with Trump?

Postby Tarlo Farm » Sat Feb 23, 2019 3:33 pm

"Just because an "investigation" didn't find HC guilty doesn't mean that someone couldn't feel that she was 'guilty'." Of course. My question was rhetorical.
Our system of law and order is set as it is. For instance, I believe OJ was guilty as hell. However, HC and the investigation into her took four years and millions of dollars, hosted by a "jury" of senators out for blood. I believe if there were anything to be found, it would have been found.

Literiding
Herd Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:53 pm

Re: Do MC and I really have different gripes with Trump?

Postby Literiding » Sun Feb 24, 2019 5:10 pm

Tarlo Farm wrote:How is it the lengthy investigation into all the above failed to find her guilty of the charges you present?


I would suggest that we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion. But I’ll note that Congressional proceedings are not “Due Process.” In fact the Supreme Court ruled that Impeachment is a political act and not a legal act therefore the results cannot be appealed to a court of law including the Supreme Court.

Edited, I hadn't had my first cup of coffee and messed-up some numbers. $145,000,000 is a lot of money but not half a billion. Sorry for the personal error!

As an aside, its interesting to note that the Clinton Foundation received a Russian NGO donation to the Clinton Foundation that equaled $1.06 per voter during her presidential bid ($145,000,000 divided by 136,669,276 voters). While I can think of several ways to use a foundation to “launder” the “donation” with some degree of legality the real issue is where did $145 million dollars come from? In round numbers, $150 million is a lot of dollars! There is only a handful of billionaires who could give away that much money without a serious reduction in cash flow. A syndicate or government are the most likely sources and they would want “value” for their “donation,” especially when you consider Russian money would certainly be better spent in Russia than donated to a U.S. foundation. There are no free rides when we’re talking about a hundred million dollars, which enough money to operate this warship for several years:

LCS 2 - c.jpg
Cost $360 million dollars new
LCS 2 - c.jpg (186.38 KiB) Viewed 305 times


Given the lack of professional diligence regarding the investigation of the email server, I will not take at face value any investigation that either Mr. Comey or Mr. McCabe are involved at any level (and that’s an personal opinion!). And given their lack of diligence investigating the email server, they would be totally out classed in the world of international finance.

Tarlo Farm wrote:And by these rightly rigorous standards, you of course, couldn't have voted for Trump, so you didn't vote? Or voted for Stein or Johnson?


In response, I offer this YouTube clip (about six and a half minutes) as entertainment:

https://youtu.be/knebCEbMl90

Moral of the story, even “talking heads” are not omniscient.

A couple of months ago, I came across this graphic in my Internet wanderings:

Elections 21 Cent.jpeg
Elections 21 Cent.jpeg (129.56 KiB) Viewed 300 times


An interesting graphic, it clearly shows that there is a generalized philosophical divide between those who live in rural areas and those who live in urban areas who voted during the 21st Century presidential elections. To get a better understanding of the data presented in the graphic, I went to Wikipedia and copied the vote tallies for each election into a spread sheet for some light analysis. At the right of the graphic, you’ll see some numbers in red. When I summed the number of votes in the spreadsheet, the total was different than listed in Wikipedia for the first three presidential elections. I couldn’t find any discrepancies and I wasn’t going to spend hours trouble shooting so I just listed the Wiki totals and the difference from my totals.

Election Numbers in 21st Century.jpeg
Election Numbers in 21st Century.jpeg (82.77 KiB) Viewed 301 times


While inspecting the table, it became obvious that most people seem to support the party platform regardless of the candidate running. I would guess that less than 10% of the voters will vote for or against a particular candidate. I was quite amazed at that small variable voter base, I would have guessed it at 25% at least. Also it becomes quickly obvious that unless the voters are not happy with the “TWO PARTY” candidates, less than 2% of the vote will go third party. The tally jumps up when the TWO PARTY choices aren’t acceptable and in the 21st century, Gore vs Bush in 2000 and Clinton vs Trump in 2016 seem to be the two elections. But that boost isn’t very large. The 2016 election only saw 5.7% go third party and that was divided among 25 separate candidates although many were not listed in all 50 states and garnered a total of 7 Electoral College Votes all cast by “faithless” members of the college.

The most successful third party candidate was Theodore Roosevelt (the first one!). When he was unsuccessful in gaining the nomination as the Republican candidate he founded the Progressive Party in 1912 managed to gain 27% of the popular vote (88 Electoral College Votes) compared to William Taft’s 23% (8 EC Votes) but the Democrats had a landslide. Woodrow Wilson amassed 42% of the popular vote (435 Electoral College Votes). A classic case of divide and conquer by the Democrats.

Other candidates that gained enough support to get some Electoral College votes were Robert La Follette had 13 in 1924, Strom Thurmond had 39 in 1948, George Wallace had 46 in 1968 and John Hospers won one in 1972, albeit from a faithless elector. Ross Perot managed to get 18.9% of the popular vote yet no Electoral College votes. Ralph Nader was a frequent presidential third party candidate but never managed more than 2.7% of the popular vote. While there is some disagreement in the analysis, Nader’s campaign in 2000 probably cost Al Gore the Presidency.

So the decision to vote third party in most years is probably fulfilling your civic responsibilities but having little or no effect on the election. But in contentious years, voting third party may have unexpected effects. In 2016, the Democrats lost 2.9% of the vote to third parties while the Republicans only lost 1.1% to third parties. So to vote third party was to support the Republicans in 2016.

khall
Bringing Life to the DDBB
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:47 am

Re: Do MC and I really have different gripes with Trump?

Postby khall » Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:33 am

That money was donated during HRC's run for President in 2008 not during her time as SOS. Uranium One has been determined to not be the smoking gun you are making it out to be Literiding for HRC.

If you have such ability to discern who is a crook in the political arena then I would hope your radar is screaming over Trump and his family. BTW Clinton and their foundation has not been found to have done anything wrong up to this point despite GOP best efforts.

KathyK
500 post plus club
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio

Re: Do MC and I really have different gripes with Trump?

Postby KathyK » Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:06 pm

People are actually still beating the "But her emails!" drum? Do you believe, Literiding, that you have more information and more desire to see some entity "Lock her up!" than the thugs in Congress who grilled her relentlessly for hours and hours, and spent even more hours (and our money) investigating and investigating and investigating, yet could not come up with a single thing with which to charge her? Do you really believe that?

KathyK
500 post plus club
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio

Re: Do MC and I really have different gripes with Trump?

Postby KathyK » Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:49 pm

Clear enough, literiding?

hillary enjoying the day.jpg
hillary enjoying the day.jpg (89.45 KiB) Viewed 167 times

Literiding
Herd Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:53 pm

Re: Do MC and I really have different gripes with Trump?

Postby Literiding » Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:24 pm

KathyK wrote:Clear enough, literiding?


As you may or may not have noticed, I've never defended Trump. The ONLY thing I can say positive about him is that he broke the Clinton machine.

But Hillary has never been investigated and why I cannot tell you although I would suspect it about political power and influence. But since you're part of the 90% who don't vote for or against a candidate, dissent with your position is "bull baiting." I'm moving along, nothing to see here!

KathyK
500 post plus club
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm
Location: Beautiful Aurora, Ohio

Re: Do MC and I really have different gripes with Trump?

Postby KathyK » Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:45 am

Literiding wrote:But Hillary has never been investigated

You must be kidding.

Literiding wrote:But since you're part of the 90% who don't vote for or against a candidate...

That does not make any sense. How does one vote if one does not vote for or against a candidate?

Regardless, you presume to know things about me that you don't know.

Tarlo Farm
500 post plus club
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 5:20 pm
Location: NW Michigan

Re: Do MC and I really have different gripes with Trump?

Postby Tarlo Farm » Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:02 pm

After reading the McCabe book and understanding the rigorous work involved with finding the deleted emails and analyzing ALL the 60K emails, I'm furious with the use of a private server by any public servant. Inexcusable. As I read page after page of the effort needed to recover eight years of emails (2008-1015) I couldn't help but think of all the money wasted. Regardless, Drumpf was not a viable candidate and I lived through Perot and Nader - I knew better than to throw away my vote, afraid we'd get the corrupt administration now in office.


Return to “The Political Forum and Other Hot Topics!”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests