From the NYT:
Among the other key findings in the F.B.I. documents:
■ Mrs. Clinton regarded emails containing classified discussions about planned drone strikes as “routine.”
■ She said she was unaware of or misunderstood some classification procedures.
■ Colin Powell, a former secretary of state, advised her to “be very careful” in how she used email.
This would kill any other candidate. The FBI made its decision not to prosecute within 72 hours of this interview.
I am a former prosecutor, but I will not pretend to be knowledgeable about the specific legal provisions in question here. But I know what the law is on obstruction of justice.
But can’t remember is an answer, with no attempt to review the interview and see if this was a reasonable answer.
Are you fucking kidding me?
REALLY?
I would note: no mention on DKOS or here. Story? What story?
“She said she was unaware of or misunderstood some classification procedures.”
Glad to hear her admit that she is not as smart as a GS-7.
What a fucking defense.
Incredible.
I don’t think the situation in handling classified material between the Secretary of State’s office and other venues is as straightforward as it is for a GS-7. She thought apparently that she had established legitimate secure rooms at her residence. This FBI report questions the adequacy of the security. When someone sent an unmarked document, how was she to understand what it should be classified. It is not egotistical to think that the Secretary of State might have that discretion on some matters. There has been some second-guessing on those unmarked documents.
The misunderstandings likely came out the nature of the unusual arrangement that she set up because she is a Blackberry addict.
The Clinton’s have for 22 years been given the worst-case reading of their statements. They have responded in lawyerly parsing, which might satisfy courts but does not satisfy the public.
And there still is a vast right-wing conspiracy working hard at this thread of several and pumping it to the media in the same old original David Bossie fashion.
Whatever this is it is not a character or leadership issue. And there has been no evidence of any actual compromised information that is more than embarrassing.
There are many other policy issues to criticize Clinton on.
But when you are drowning a witch, whether the witch is innocent or guilty is immaterial. In the end you have drowned witch.
The intent of all this brouhaha is not justice or transparency, it is to bring down a Clinton again. You can tell that by how arcane the discussion gets.
There is NO WAY discussion of potential targets of drone strikes is anything but confidential.
Period.
The intent of the FBI is ti actually pretend that the law matters.
Powell was a General officer. He knew that security is not a game. That’s the difference.
Despite his trusting Cheney about the WMD. Despite his admitted torture approval. I would still feel much much safer with him as President than her. Some people make mistakes. Some people are so egotistical as to be reckless.
Powell didn’t (doesn’t?) recall that emailed SoS Clinton on skirting the State Dept email system. Would seem to be something that would stick out in someone’s mind since this was after Rove was busted. Sounds as if hes not too sharp these days.
The only honorable response from him to such an inquiry in 2009 would have been to use the State Dept system.
Since way back to (if not before), Powell has been covering for and covering up information that the public has a right to know. Lying to the world so that GWB/Cheney could get their war on wasn’t just shameful but led to the deaths of thousands in the US military. His public demeanor may be more appealing but he’s right in there with Kissinger, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. And nothing any of them ever did “made us safe.”
I find the release of this information during campaign season most unusual considering that other candidates in the past have been shielded from such releases until after election day.
Donald Trump’s trial on fraud for Trump University is postponed until after the election, for example.
This is a Friday dump, either to hide it or to make sure it dominates the Sunday talk shows. One never knows the political gaming.
What concerns me about the Republican investigations of the Clintons and this current round of allegations is the nature of a fishing expedition about it.
Dick Cheney ordered the vengeful exposure of the identity of a CIA asset that ruined a career and likely important information about Iran and its nuclear ambitions, if any. No accountability. Scooter Libby took the fall and was given a get out of jail free card by President Bush. Getting any story at all was accomplished by a few bloggers, including Jane Hamsher and Marcy Wheeler.
The media here has been flogging this story for months. The critics (not just lefties) of Hillary Clinton see this as either an electoral vulnerability or a potentially distracting situation in the first days of a Presidency.
And Trump has hired David Bossie who flogged the Whitewater scandal from 1993 onward as staff on his campaign.
I’m reminded of John Brennan who remarked he was giving the “least untruthful answer” to a question by a Congressional committee. That is, IMO a lawyer’s parsing. Clinton’s experience as a lawyer and being careful with language may work at the level of criminal law but it makes everything she does about this look evasive, whether it is or not. It is framed as as no-win box.
I say give her a pass and release those convicted under the 1917 Espionage Law from prison and pardon them. And bring Edward Snowden home, pardoned.
And in the next Presidency come to terms with what has become a burdensome and unworkable classification law and practice that allows secret government where there should be open government.
“I can’t remember.” was good enough to get Ronald Reagan off the hook in the Iran-Contra affair. Was it a reasonable answer? It depends on how you diagnose the progression of his Alzheimers disease.
A question, if in her position at the ’08 and still hopeful that the presidency would be hers in the future, wouldn’t you have made every effort to keep you nose clean and not do any secret crap that if found out would be fodder for your enemies?
We’re not speaking of whatever round-abouts that Colin Powell used 2001-2005, but after Rove was busted in 2007 for using the RNC server. Why would anyone with zero computer technical skills make any assumptions about security outside the State Dept SOP? What institutions/organizations allow for deviations from SOP without a sign-off from the boss? She was fully informed that her Blackberry was not a secure communication device, and therefore, should never have been used for any work related communications. And if she’s too dumb not to know that her work communications were subject to FOIA requests, then she’s not too bright. (If I, who have never held a government job or handled any classified materials, know such basic protocols for senior federal employees, her “I didn’t know/I assumed/Powell said it was okay/etc. act doesn’t pass the smell test.)
She did it for the same reason that Powell, Rove, and probably many others (although none that we know of had a personal server under his/her control), to keep stuff secret from the boss, co-workers, and/or the public. In accepting the job of SoS, she agreed to an iron curtain between her office and her husband’s foundation and she violated that agreement. She was in a position to offer stuff to leaders around the world — wink-wink-nod-nod — and along comes Bill with “sure would be nice if you’d help out my foundation with a donation.
“In accepting the job of SoS, she agreed to an iron curtain between her office and her husband’s foundation and she violated that agreement. “
The money quote!
the server at home made the wall between SOS and Clinton Foundation more permeable, or more easily permeable. imo that’s the reason for it, hubris etc aside; plus not really reconciled to the fact that the blah guy won the election
I think DOJ believed that this was relevant to the election, and wrapped up the investigation before the start labor day so it could be considered.
If take the evidence in the best light for the DOJ, they believed knowingly was something they could never prove.
But I suspect they were outraged by the whole thing, and wanted to protect FBI’s impartiality.
Releasing the work product of an investigation is unusual.
I will say, though, that I find the idea that discussing the targets for drone strikes is not confidential information absurd.
I don’t believe.
She broke the law. She knew that was confidential and she did it anyway.
What law says that discussing the targets for drone strikes is confidential. Does not the law give discretion for classification to the person classifying the information?
Insta-declassifying the identity of Valerie Place was more consequential than what happened to this supposed failure to observe confidentiality.
I’m sorry, this area of law is so screwed up that using it to swing an election is the stupidest thing I have seen progressives advocate. And prosecution under the law will swing the election.
It is a put up job by the same folks that carried out the 1990s fishing expedition and set a honey trap. There are Republican fingerprints all over the push to read this information in a certain way.
The FBI believed that this was relevant to the election only when they were subpoenaed to present it to a GOP witch-hunt committee. And that allowed journalists to FOIA the documents that could be released.
And we know that we cannot trust the media to accurately report anything about the Clintons. Or Democrats for that matter.
I fault Clinton on many policy judgements, but this rush to judgement by Democrats is getting crazy.
Let’s see the actual list of drone targets, if it exists. Secrecy has been used to convict without evidence before in American history.
Given the history of the media and the Clintons, I’m taking this with a huge grain of salt until more things shake out. The fingerprints of too many character assassins are on this story to satisfy me that its on the level.
They say that a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. It’s the fallacy of that logical chain that I am questioning.
Too many people want her to be guilty of something, anything, and it creates a self-validation fallacy when the less little thing comes out.
The idea that the FBI is impartial is a joke that has been played on US citizens since the day J. Edgar Hover took the directorship (if not before). None of his successors have been different.
I am not clear what you are arguing.
The argument seems to be:
Is it not relevant to note that she lied to the public about this fact on numerous occasions? She said she had clearance from State to use a Private Server – the IG report says that is a lie.
So your basic argument I as understand it is that the election is too important to allow for prosecutors to follow that law, and they are all just corrupt anyway.
I guess I actually agree with the last part – but fuck how the hell is that even something to discuss?
Sorry, I am pissed as hell that the nominee of my party involves me in discussions about this shit.
very clearly stated, thank you
Surprising that even “The Daily Beast” (that’s been like a booster club for HRC for over a year) is reporting on a piece of this. The headline is attention grabbing, Hillary Clinton’s Team Lost a Laptop Full of Her Emails in the Actual Mail and the article isn’t written so it’s easy to follow who, what, when,…, but the information is there if one reorganizes the presentation.
Different people gave different answers as to why this was done. Could be fuzzy memories, the individual wasn’t told why, and/or deceitful answers. The most plausible, but with a caveat (below) to me, answer is:
The MSM reported the hack of Blumenthal’s (and others) email in March 2013, and included a reconstructed (without the headers) Sid to H email that the hacker posted on-line. However, only Sid and H knew that the content was real and also should have known that the hacker knew that it hadn’t been sent to Hillary’s State Dept email address.
Getting her server off-line and transferring the data to another computer ASAP would seem to me to have been warranted from this development. [The caveat] Platte River dates their initial contact for a proposal to perform computer work for the Clintons to February 2013. So, it would appear that something was afoot before the hack was known. Was it a tell that the Clintons didn’t seek help on this from any one of their Silicon Valley BFFs and instead sought a proposal from a podunk operation in CO?
Anyway the hack occurred before any proposal had been completed:
Sheesh! OTOH, perhaps neither had been informed of the hack and Hanley was just doing what she’d been told to do.
Whatever.
The contract with Platte River was signed in June 2013.
*After first migrating them to a Gmail account. Apparently the laptop wasn’t “wiped” as Hanley had instructed Platte River to do. The Platte River guy/gal then shipped the laptop and thumb drive to a Clinton aide, but neither have been seen since then.
There’s more in the Daily Beast article, but it’s not clear when most of this was happening. It wasn’t until October 2014 that the State Dept request HRC turn over her emails.
Wonder if somebody is hoping that that laptop and thumbdrive suffered the same fate as a couple of HRC’s Blackberrys.
Classified information in more and more hands. Incredible. I suppose everyone in the world EXCEPT the American public knows the content of those e-mails.
An email is a text file with certain headers. It is easy to forge and post online.
Only Blumenthal and Clinton knew whether the email posted was real and only Blumenthal knows whether he was actually hacked. Is there confirmation from Blumenthal and Clinton that this hack actually occurred? Who reported it? The media after a source pointed to it online?
If it was something published by Wikileaks, know that Wikileaks does not vet the authenticity of what they posted except through knowledge of the identity of their source.
The GOP regularly blows off the “appearance of scandal” even when it is a real scandal. The media gives them all sorts of passes.
There is something very stinky about this investigation, the media coverage, and Democrats’ rush to judgement.
You knew before the convention that this sort of negative campaigning was coming out of the House investigating committee, which is angry and frustrated by the failure to hang Benghazi around Clinton’s neck.
As a recent article put it, Clinton-hate is a multi-billion dollar cottage industry that has gone on non-stop for a quarter century.
According to Gucifer’s guilty plea, he did hack Blumenthal and the court appears to find it credible considering that he got a 52 month sentence:
Hacker known as Guccifer sentenced to 52 months in prison – The Washington Post
On the other hand he also claims he hacked Clinton’s server, but since he can’t prove that he is not charged with it. Which I find a bit curious, but there you go.
What is at issue is the contents of the document reported to be posted by Guccifer on the internet. Was that what he stole or a forgery designed just to make it look like Clinton was not careful with confidential material? We are way down the road on search for scandal here, and forgeries are a common occurrence in gee whiz slam-dunk news stories. Remember Curveball and the yellowcake unranium?
I’m questioning “evidence” produced by essentially politically motivated sources.
You seem not to have followed the important ins-and-outs of this story beginning in 2013. Had Guccifer forwarded the products of his hacks to Wikileaks, a lot more would have been known a lot sooner. Why are you so quick to condemn Wikileaks for something that it had no involvement in?
As it was, none of those he claimed to have hacked and then posted on-line reconstructions of some emails denied the content. For good reason because in 2013 nobody knew who Guccifer was and how much he’d grabbed. Thus, it would have been more dangerous to deny the authenticity of authentic content than simply acknowledge that they been hacked and hope that the media and public would view them as a victim and move on. Which is what happened.
Those hacked lucked out because Guccifer had only rudimentary tech skills and equipment and his primary intent was to get into the communications of Romanian politicians and post anything that he thought looked embarrassing. His on-line post of Blumenthal’s emails was to give the impression that he was an awesome hacker and knew what he could do with his stolen treasure. Neither were true.
The official and/or public discovery of HRC’s private email account and server did NOT result from Guccifer’s hacks. FOIA requests by CREW and JW to the State Dept came back with “no records found.” The House Benghazi committee fared little better. It wasn’t until April/May that the House committee received a handful of emails that had HRC’s private address in the header. Even then those jerkwads were so obsessed with the Benghazi nonsense (nonsense wrt to HRC and the State dept outpost), that they didn’t recognize what that header suggested.
The relevance of the Guccifer hacks (and I agree with fjallstrom that he didn’t get into HRC’s server) is in attempting to piece together the stories as to what and when the HRC people were doing.
I was not condemning Wikileaks, just pointing out that their credibility depends on their sources. I was not sure where the Guccifer hacks were distributed, but even if they were distributed through Wikileaks, they could not be taken at face value.
Chelsea Manning stands behind the Cablegate and Iraqgate leaks. Edward Snowden stands behind his leaks.
Who exactly is Guccifer anyway and what axes does he grind?
You’re not getting it. The content of the Blumenthal email that Guccifer posted on-line was innocuous. There was nothing untoward about Sid and Hill engaging in personal email communications either.
If the content Guccifer posted had been fraudulent, you can bet your sweet bippie that Blumenthal would have publicly said so. There was never any question that “Guccifer” had hacked into various email accounts, but who this person was and where he/she was located was a mystery. Only solved later by Romanian authorities because that’s where he was and that was his primary interest. Doubt that he even recognized the potential importance of Clinton having that personal email address beyond giving him another account to try to hack. One that may not have been worth the amount of time it took him to hack into email servers.
Whether these “mistakes” are a result of a certain kind of stupidity, incompetence, actual criminal activity of the treasonous kind or the simple entitlement of the rich and powerful…another symptom of stupidity, really…they should disqualify her for consideration of any sensitive office in the U.S. government. The fact that they have not already disqualified her is a testament to either:
1-The dangers provided by her opponent
and/or
2-The thoroughly rotted-out state of the federal government bureaucracy as a whole….llegislative, judicial and executive branches
I favor the latter, although not by very much.
AG
Its the first.
Trump is a would be Hitler, we are told. Romney was a potential dictator who was going to take away the right to choose. McCain was totally unfit. Bush was an incompetent idiot. Did you ever hear the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf?
It’s worn thin. Too thin. We have to accept anything because the Republican is worse. I do beleive that Trump is incompetent because he’s in over his head. Likewise Stein. Likewise Clinton! The only candidate that is competent is Johnson and he believes in laissez-faire! While that may be slightly better than crony capitalism, it is still feeding workers to the sharks. So who will I vote for in November since all choices are unacceptable? Well, I know the fix is in for Clinton in Illinois, so whoever the polls show is #2 or maybe I just won’t bother.
Yes, door #2.
Let’s re-vet the entire Presidential field in 2016 by your standard.
Who would likely pass that test?
What has set me off is applying a standard to a female who has had access to sensitive material running when that standard is not being applied to any other candidate. And the past history of that tactic in service to Republican interests.
And the gnawing on the details is part of the tactic to increase distrust and validate the Republican narrative.
Four years of service and no scandal. Just because Clinton is running for President suddenly it’s all that important to disqualify her. How exactly does that work in practice? Who becomes the Democratic candidate? When does Trump get disqualified as well? Let’s have no invented advantages here; let’s consistently disqualify corrupt characters, if they are corrupt.
There is a reason that Republicans are so interested in taking down the Clintons. So much so that it has been a quarter-century-long drumbeat.
And as much as I do not like the Clinton policies, the corruption of political process that disqualifying Clinton in the middle of a campaign for this sort of issue would be devastating to the electoral process. Just as the Clinton impeachment proved that Presidents who deserve to be impeached never are and that it is primarily a political tool during high stakes times.
Agreed. Probably no one would pass that test. Possibly Obama might if only because the oversight in the West Wing must be punishingly thorough.
But…the fact that this is being used as a political lever does not diminish the truth of the matter. She was at the very least almost criminally careless about her email usage. And that carelessness speaks to me of typical high-level entitlement. She has a fine mind for facts and figures but for the Queen…or the King for that matter…petty details of the email sort are left to the underlings. I’m fed up with that attitude…from her, from previous ruling class candidates and politicians…from just about everybody in the national political public eye. I await a working class president. In vain, I suppose, but hope springs eternal. A president who…as I have stated elsewhere here…vacations in Newark and rides in an armored Chevy Volt. A working class president who is a nuts and bolts person, someone who promises to roll up his…or her…sleeves and start dealing with the nitty gritty realities of what is going down here.
Trump is running on that image, but I do not believe it, myself. I won’t believe it from anyone until I witness it with my own eyes. Until then…on plentiful evidence…they are all jive.
All shucking, all the time.
So it goes.
Later…
AG
You’ll never see that. The best you can hope for is FDR or Bobby Kennedy, an elite with empathy.
So the U.S. is now a de facto aristocracy? Are we reduced to waiting for a benevolent despot to bless us all with his largesse?
Could be, I guess.
I don’t see any waiting in the wings, though.
Later…
AG
Always has been.
No, it hasn’t. We have had up-from-the-working-classes presidents before. In fact, Clinton I and Obama were just that. It hasn’t always been Bushes, Roosevelts, Kennedys, Adamses etc.
These days it seems to be more like down-from-the-whoring classes.
AG
Clinton’s stepfather was the richest man in town, the local Buick dealer. Obama’s stepfather was an Indonesian businessman. Neither are working class.
Her gender has nothing to do with it. And if you are using it as an excuse (“hold her to a lower standard, she’s only a woman” then that’s sexism.
How do you know that it’s nothing but a misogyny? This situation isn’t totally unique. Notice Petraeus, one of the great white GOP hopes, isn’t the GOP nominee or even a candidate for political office. While classified materials were not likely at issue, the closest any other senior administration official has come to doing what HRC did was Rove. He wasn’t a woman, he was roundly criticized, and he resigned after his use of the RNC server was exposed. (Note: it was the RNC server and not his own and therefore, he couldn’t choose the stuff to retain to put into a book that would get him a hefty advance.) However, both Rove and HRC chose to do this to avoid FOIA requests. (There may have been other administration eyes that HRC was avoiding as well.)
The unsecure transfer of classified materials is one part of this matter — the one that’s more easily categorized as illegal and rankles more people. Far more important to me is 1) skirting FOIA and 2) skirting the iron-curtain between State and the Clinton foundation agreement. Those people hobnobbing with SoS Clinton and that also donated to the CF weren’t doing that out of the goodness of their hearts. They didn’t care what CF did with the money, and many of those donations may not have risen to a level other than securing no objections from SoS Clinton to deals the administration was otherwise inclined to approve. Welcoming SoS HRC increased her positive public stature (Americans give high marks to anyone on a visible public stage and don’t much look at what the person actually does), giving money to the CF greased the ‘personal relationship’ (those heads of states and extremely wealthy people aren’t as naive as to how things get done as the average voter is), increasing the national/world stature of WJC for “good works” contributed to the stature they needed to get back in the WH. And when that happens that’s when they get the pay-offs.
Picture Condoleezza Rice doing this following a request from Nancy Pelosi.
Somehow I don’t think the current shruggers would characterize the action as a “nothingburger”.
Clinton Rules, indeed.
Bob Cesca:
Billmmon responses:
I can vouch for the fact that the IWR, 2002 midterms, and all the pro-war crap — including if you’re not for the war, you’re a Saddam lover/appeaser — drove Billmmon to begin blogging in early November 2002. Almost fourteen years now and he’s retained his objectivity through all of time.
yes, how is it different from GWB and the Patriot Act? we can’t have democracy b/c Trump
Supporting sketchy and untruthful claims about Clinton’s emails, claims brought to us by thoroughly partisan actors, is NOT defending democracy.
The Clinton Foundation is NOT the Patriot Act.
what in the world are you talking about? my comment was in agreement with the Billmon quote – a rephrasing as it were
Bringing in the parallel to W. Bush and the Patriot Act was weak and unwarranted.
I’m perfectly willing to enter into criticisms of Clinton. That doesn’t damage democracy.
Electing Trump would damage democracy, and would particularly damage the people our community claims to care about.
Engaging in broad and specific criticisms of Clinton which aren’t supported by the facts, and holding Clinton to standards which Stein, Johnson and Trump are not held to, is not only the wrong thing to do, it increases the odds of Trump being elected President.
I want to elect the best Presidential candidate before us, elect the best Congress possible, and hold them to account after the election. Painting devil’s horns on Hillary and others, as many do here, most often has the effect of disempowering individuals in our movement, and those we want to draw into our movement. It’s infuriating; it’s exactly the wrong thing to do in pursuit of the goals we share.
yes, and? we all agree that electing Trump would be terrible. what I’m talking about is using that as a reason not to discuss our candidate’s flaws and potential problems on the road ahead. it’s get with the program or you’re helping elect Trump. How is that different from what Billmon writes?
writing that something is “weak and unwarranted” is just a hand-waving way of agreeing I’m correct (thank you) because you really have no refutation of what I wrote – if you have any argument against my assertion, other than the well-worn “Trump is scary” feel free to write it out for all of us to read
The responses from a number of people in this community to the FBI release, which supports almost all of Clinton’s public statements, including the chronology of her conversation with Secretary Powell, is the latest in a long line of evidences that Clinton is judged by a different standard than anyone else.
A particularly rich example of this was the hue and cry during the primary by many here about the 1994 crime bill, which Hillary did not have a role in crafting, and was a bill which Bernie Sanders voted into law. Yet many progressives avoided raking Sanders over the coals on that issue while going to town on Hillary.
If we want to have the best Congress possible, and have the best ability to influence a Clinton Administration, we should stick to the facts and fair criticism whenever possible. Unwarranted criticism needlessly demobilizes voters and depresses turnout. The higher the turnout, the better it is for almost all issues we care about, including the health of our democracy.
Some of us are old enough to recall being called pinko-commies for opposing the Vietnam War and a couple years later for supporting George McGovern. So, while it still infuriates us, we are used to insults being hurled by those vested in whatever or whomever TPTB promulgate as what “real Americans” are supposed to support.
Cesca’s Knowing the stakes of a Trump victory, any attack on Hillary must be regarded as tacit praise for Trump tweet from Bilmon.
wrt 1) It demands fantasies of shoving a fist in their faces.
well we just don’t know what will happen. focus on downballot races, electing senators and have enough discussion of HRC’s flaws that Senate will keep her accountable. what bothers me the most about the Clinton Foundation issues is that it’s just the beginning of hidden foreign policy adventures on the part of the billionaires – like now is our last chance for some transparency
How many of those down-ticket Democratic nominees aren’t in the pocket of the Clinton Democratic Party?
The equation during WJC’s tenure to get (corporate) stuff done was DINOs plus most Republicans and the occasional arm twisting of a Democrat when the vote fell short. (GOP voters remain as blind to the GOP Congress collusion with Clinton as Democrats remain blind to Clinton’s collusion with Republicans.) The equation during Obama’s tenure to get (corporate) stuff done has been 95-100% of congressional Democrats (b/c they want Obama to succeed) plus a small number of Republicans. Half or more of the Democratic caucus doesn’t really want that stuff and 80% or more of the Republican caucus does want that stuff, but that 50%+ and 80% aren’t voting for what they really want.
As HRC is white, my guess is that fewer Republicans in congress would feel compelled to “just say no” 100% of the time for stuff they actually want. More Clinton loyal Democrats in congress would further reduce the number of Republicans needed to “get stuff done.” That will give Republicans cover with their voters while also getting what they want.
saw a quote from a woman leader of BLM – she said, she’s not voting for a candidate, she’s voting for terrain. that’s the way I view it. alas I’m spending all day and evening at work, if I have a chance to look for her quote will do. It doesn’t matter who’s in Clinton pocket, among dems, because a number will be amenable to being pushed in a progressive direction since that’s the way the citizens are going – case by case basis of course and it’s about building a progressive center in Congress. omg I’m sounding like Martin. but I agree with him on that. that’s also what the BLM woman was getting at. however they get to their offices, what matters to the citizens will affect some of them, not all of course. and take a look at whom DFA and the Sanders group are supporting. it’s all that stands between us and a tsunami of billionaires
she’s voting for terrain.
I get it. Need a wordsmith to make it more intuitively obvious and desirable as a way to go.
At the moment I’m sort of stumped because the only “organizing principle” for left of neoliberal-cons in this election cycle has been Bernie and he’s been a bit AWOL and his team wasn’t prepared to turn the lemons he was handed into some lemonade in November.
The DFA candidate list is short. Haven’t compared it with those have been endorsed by Sanders — only Zephyr Teachout stood out as one on both lists as I scrolled through them.
Didn’t hurt incumbents running for reelection that endorsed Sanders in their primaries. A not insignificant number of non-incumbents that backed him also won their primaries. Don’t know what their general election prospects are. Should probably spend some time and take a closer look at this.
I’m also supporting Denise Juneau
https:/denisejuneau.com
her family’s been in Montana for more than hundred generations [forget the number but it;s alot]
Not on either list.
I think she looks promising. her opponent spoke at the R convention so he’s linked with Trump
I assume the GOP incumbent is fairly dreadful. But that might not be sufficient info and thought for a leftie in this election cycle.
Here’s an interesting nugget. CA house district 25. New boundaries with the last redistricting. Dem party is eying this as a purple district. Reddish-purple IMHO. The GOP incumbent. Knight, was elected in 2014 — so, he’s not a dug in incumbent, but he is a local guy in the eastern portion of the district and has served in city and state govt since 2005. A staunch but not extreme Republican. Most of the district was represented by a long-term GOP congressman who retired in 2014.
Vince, a Democrat, has served on a town council in a western part of the district since 2011 and decided to challenge Knight. He secured the backing of the California Democratic party and others. Then supported Bernie.
The National Dem Party swooped in (Gavin Newsom injected himself into the race at some point) and brought in a carpetbagger. Caforio. A Beverly Hills trial attorney who appeals to liberals and has been endorsed by DFA. With the top two primary system, Knight and Caforio advanced to the general.
The problem is Caforio can’t win the general. Primary– Knight and the GOP challenger took 55.6% of the vote. Caforio 29.1% and Vince 15.4%. Those numbers suggest that Vince would have been the weaker general election candidate and national Democrats were right to swoop in. But they weren’t.
The western portion of the district is slightly more populous than the eastern portion. As one moves from east to west, wealth and liberalism increase. But straddling that east/west cultural line is where a high number of LAPD officers live. Knight was with the LAPD officer for 18 years in the eastern region. Vince is a Lt. and has 20 years with the LAPD. Knight has an AA degree and Vince has a BS and MS. After the Democratic party smeared Vince, no way does Caforio get the votes of those straddling that cultural divide.
one central issue in MT is public lands; for the Rs, corporate unfettered exploitation thereof. for this issue alone I’d support her.
Wouldn’t presume to weigh in with you on this race. See that Amanda Curtis that iirc you’ve been high on for some time won her primary (and also backed Bernie).
she’s amazing. yes, she was one of the first to back Bernie.
hoping she’ll make another run for US Senate
A shame she didn’t run for reelection in 2014. While she’s still young, every year in office is critical to building one’s political resume and name ID to position oneself for hoped for future openings.
interesting and distressing example, Vince’s candidacy. is my point, however, that these races must be understood from the ground not from afar and unfortunate that the National Dem Party got involved. imo much is up for grabs now; candidates like Vince not only can win, they can change the makeup of the dem party for the better. I think of DFA as pretty responsive and generally doing its homework on candidates; it’s possible they could have been persuaded not to back Caforio if called attention to the situation – one of the benefits of their being based in VT, a rural state, rather than DC.
What looking at the Knight/Caforio/Vince primary highlighted for me is that vetting candidates is only one component of effective use of limited resources.
On paper, Caforio ticks all the right boxes for a liberal. And someone like Vince doesn’t. Not too different from the overwhelming Dem/Lib response generally and here to the Grayson-Murphy primary. Although it seemed a waste of energy to get involved in the Grayson-Murphy battle; like a choice between backing a losing Republican with a D behind his name or a losing ideosyncratic and tainted Democrat that does some good work in DC.
Caforio is the type of candidate that Democrats generally lose with in red/purple districts. Win or lose, the party puts a lot of money into such candidates and nothing is gained when they lose and nothing is gained for a traditional Democratic agenda if they win.
I guess what I’m saying is that far more variables have to be considered than ever before considering where our political system and governance and the general state of so many pressing and important issues. Never before have I entertained the prospect of how dangerous a landslide win for a Democratic POTUS nominee could be if there are no congressional checks on his/her power. Nor have I ever considered that rightwing obstructionism could be an asset. Mostly because in the past rightwingers were invested in stopping decent legislation that didn’t conform to their rightwing belief system. Now such obstructionism is fact free and strictly anti-Democrat.