Octopus Overlords

Zarathud wrote:What organization doesn't cater to its CEO with exceptions and special treatment?

hepcat wrote:What terrifying truth are you expecting?

hepcat wrote:What terrifying truth are you expecting?

raydude wrote:

msduncan wrote:I'll just point out here that my wife, who isn't a Clinton, would already have been jailed if she publicly shared some of the email that goes by her desk. She'd probably avoid long jail sentences, but she'd definitely be cuffed and spend a bit of time in the lockup. Now, on the other hand, if she went to work and set up an external email server to put all of those government emails on -- the feds would not be NEARLY as lenient.

However, if you are a Clinton ruling class bitch, apparently the rules are different than for us working class peasants. That's all I'm saying. Pretty much think that lines up with what Trump said about her going to jail.

Interesting that you mention wife and bitch in the same post. As an exercise in empathy, imagine how you would feel if someone associated the adjective with your wife instead.

Smoove_B wrote:In case anyone cares what NJ looks like with 95% of the voting counted. We are a closed primary state.

A registered voter currently not affiliated with a political party may declare their party affiliation up to and including Primary Election day.

Saucier’s friends, conservative commentators and others say the stiff charges leveled against Saucier were out of whack with more lenient treatment given to senior officials who face allegations of mishandling classified information, like Clinton.
“I just don’t think it’s fair,” said Gene Pitcher, a retired Navy sailor who served with Saucier aboard the Alexandria. “In reality, what she did is so much worse than what Kris did. ... I think it’s just a blatant double standard.”

Clinton has not been charged with any crime, but the FBI has been investigating how information that intelligence agencies consider classified wound up on the private server that hosted her only email account during the four years she served as secretary of state. Some news reports have said charges are unlikely.

“Felony charges appear to be reserved for people of the lowest ranks. Everyone else who does it either doesn’t get charged or gets charged with a misdemeanor,” said Edward MacMahon, a Virginia defense attorney not involved in the Saucier case.
To some, the comparison to Clinton’s case may appear strained. Clinton has said none of the information on her server was marked classified at the time. In many cases, it was marked as unclassified when sent to her by people in the State Department more familiar with the issues involved.

By contrast, sailors are trained early on that the engine compartment of a nuclear sub is a restricted area and that much information relating to the sub’s nuclear reactors is classified.

Still, it’s far from obvious that the information Saucier took photos of is more sensitive than information found in Clinton’s account. Court filings say the photos were clear enough that they reveal classified details about the submarine that could be of use to foreign governments, such as the vessel’s maximum speed.

However, the Navy says the photos are classified “confidential,” which is the lowest tier of protection for classified information and is designated for information that could cause some damage to national security but not “serious” or “exceptionally grave” damage.

Intelligence agencies claim that Clinton’s account contained 65 messages with information considered “Secret” and 22 classified at the “Top Secret” level. Some messages contained data under an even more restrictive “special access program” designation.
Clinton and her campaign have disputed those findings, calling them a result of “overclassification” and urging that the messages be released in full.

However, Clinton’s critics and some former intelligence officials said she should have recognized the sensitivity of the information. They’ve also noted that about 32,000 messages on Clinton’s server were erased after her lawyers deemed them personal.

“The DOJ is willing to prosecute a former sailor to the full extent of the law for violating the law on classified material, in a situation where there was no purposeful unsecured transmission of classified material,” conservative blogger Ed Morrissey wrote last year. “Will they pursue Hillary Clinton and her team, at the other end of the power spectrum from the rank-and-file, for deliberate unsecured transmission of improperly marked classified nat-sec intelligence? Will they pursue the same kind of obstruction of justice charges for Hillary’s wiping of her server as they are for Saucier’s destruction of his laptop?”

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has considered the idea of serving as Hillary Clinton's running mate but sees obstacles to that choice as she prepares to endorse the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, several people familiar with Warren's thinking told Reuters. While her thinking could evolve, Warren has concerns about joining a Clinton ticket, including the question of whether running two women would give the Democrats the best shot at defeating Republican Donald Trump, one source said.

Advisers to Warren, a fiery critic of Wall Street and a popular figure among progressive Democrats, have been in close contact with Clinton's campaign team and the conversations have increased in frequency in recent weeks, the sources said. Warren has signaled to people close to her that she is intrigued by the possibility of being Clinton's No. 2 but has not discussed the role with Clinton, 68, or anyone else from her campaign, the people said.

Warren, 66, has been one of the Democrats' most outspoken critics of Trump, 69, and her priority is helping to defeat the presumptive Republican nominee in the Nov. 8 presidential election, the sources said. Warren is also committed to advancing her own political agenda, which they described as “more progressive” than Clinton’s more centrist positions. Warren fears that as vice president, or in a cabinet position, her voice could be less heard than it is in the U.S. Senate on her priority issues such as addressing income inequality, the sources said. In the past, Warren has accused Clinton of abandoning her support for stronger bankruptcy legislation to try to appease Wall Street.

Rip wrote:http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/k ... ton-223646

El Guapo wrote:Also, re: Warren as VP, I just looked it up, and in the Massachusetts statehouse democrats control 133 out of 160 seats in the House, and 33 out of 38 seats in the Senate. Couldn't they just rewrite the procedure for replacing a senator? I wonder if there's anything keeping them from changing the rules so that the legislature picks the replacement senator.

The upshot of Reid’s review is that Senate Democrats may have found an avenue to block or at least narrow GOP Governor Charlie Baker’s ability to name a temporary replacement and prevent the Senate from flipping to a Democratic majority if Warren were to leave the chamber. That suggests the issue is not as significant an obstacle as Reid previously feared.

Pieces of the legal guidance given to Reid were shared with the Globe by a person close to Reid who is familiar with the guidance.

“Reid sees a number of promising paths to making sure that Democrats keep Warren’s seat and is very open to her being selected,” said this person, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Kraken wrote:
Personally, I don't want to lose her as our senator, and I'm betting that Warren will see that Clinton gains a whole lot more than she does as VP.

GreenGoo wrote:Yep, it also feels like her head is the wrong size.

Captain Caveman wrote:Oh, it's on now.

Holman wrote:I don't think this was linked before, but whether you like Clinton or don't, this profile in New York magazine is really worth reading.

msduncan wrote:I'll just point out here that my wife, who isn't a Clinton, would already have been jailed if she publicly shared some of the email that goes by her desk. She'd probably avoid long jail sentences, but she'd definitely be cuffed and spend a bit of time in the lockup. Now, on the other hand, if she went to work and set up an external email server to put all of those government emails on -- the feds would not be NEARLY as lenient.

However, if you are a Clinton ruling class bitch, apparently the rules are different than for us working class peasants. That's all I'm saying. Pretty much think that lines up with what Trump said about her going to jail.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
How long did it take your staff of 823 people to think that up--and where are your 33,000 emails that you deleted?

msduncan wrote:So mention of Hillary's 'delete your account' tweet, and no mention of the great response?

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
How long did it take your staff of 823 people to think that up--and where are your 33,000 emails that you deleted?