[Daily Kos] Hillary Rodham Clinton has committed a felony. That is apparent from the facts and in the plain-language of the federal statute that prohibits "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information", 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) and (f). This offense carries a potential penalty of ten years imprisonment.
It's called a prima facie case: clear on the basis of known facts.
It's up to prosecutorial discretion by the US Attorney as to what charges may be filed and when. Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton is clearly chargeable for violation of federal law. As of right now, the matter is under FBI investigation. This isn't just about violation of Departmental policy.
Panned by the Daily Kos? She really is out of Schlitz.
The Kos Kidz have been wanting Bernie for a long time. They and the NYT are doing what they can to get Hilarity out of the race. And yes, she's outta beer...
#2
There are two systems of justice in the U.S. There's felonies for the oligarchs and then there are felonies for the rest of us. I'll reconsider the above statement when Clinton is compelled to stand before a court for the listed felonies.
#5
I've said it before: What's strange about Hillary's position is that the same people who should be rising to her defense seem to have to particular reason to help her succeed.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
08/30/2015 14:26 Comments ||
Top||
#6
That's NO particular reason.
(I think I'll go have a beer. And it won't be a Schlitz.)
Posted by: ed in texas ||
08/30/2015 14:28 Comments ||
Top||
[RedState] Well, this is interesting: "Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman Medusa Debbie Wasserman Schultz blocked consideration of a resolution at the party's summer meeting that would have praised President Obama and backed the his nuclear deal with Iran, The Washington Post reported Saturday, citing unnamed sources." Probably irrelevant, but still interesting. It makes one wonder how the Iran deal is doing in the Democrats' internal polling, at the very least.
And that's important not because the Democrats are having second thoughts about the Iran deal, although they really should be. It's important because the Democratic party is probably quite keen to be in a position where they can effectively pretend that they're not in favor of the Iran deal, if necessary. There's a saying in one of the social clubs that I belong to: Non scriptus, non est. Which basically means "If it's not written down, it didn't happen." A resolution that puts the Democratic party officially on the side of the President could end up being a profoundly embarrassing resolution indeed; replacing it with a more informal letter showing personal support by DNC members would be safer.
Or perhaps Rep. Medusa Debbie Wasserman SchultzWasserman Schultz (D-FL) 9% had a more pragmatic reason for nixing the resolution?
Wasserman Schultz, who represents a heavily Jewish congressional district in south Florida, has not taken a position on the agreement. She faces significant pressure to break with the president and oppose the deal and has been undertaking her own review before announcing her position.
You have to feel for Jewish Democratic Members of Congress right now -- no, really, you do. Oh, you can still feel a lively contempt for the way that they're supporting an administration that simply regurgitates the easy hatred of Israel that we've come to expect from academia and the Hard Left, but this particular shift in American foreign policy came with alarming speed. Granted, the proper response here would for said Jewish Members of Congress to stop being Democrats; and I can't really blame anybody on my side who will restrict their sympathy for any aforementioned Member of Congress who can't go quite that far...
#1
Little Ms. Debbie has a constituency that is largely Jewish. She's looking to re-election in the Fall; otherwise she is a Kool-Aid drinker and "all in."
#2
...Sadly, the battlewagons are gone. Iowa, New Jersey, and Missouri are all museums and beyond bringing back as warships. Wisconsin was held in semi-restorable status for some years, but IIRC that was changed a couple years ago and she is now a museum herself at Norfolk. There are no spares, no support facilities, and most importantly, there is no money for a crew that big.
As far as designing a new 'heavy combatant'...Dear Lord, think about how badly the current Naval-Industrial Complex would frack that up. Look at the horror show design of the LCS - I mean, frigate - became. Imagine what they'd do to a 'heavy combatant'. (Actually, you don't have to imagine, just look at the USS Zumwalt.)We'd have to design a new missile - Tomahawk and Harpoon are both, bluntly, obsolete, so there's a couple of hundreds of billions of dollars there. And finally, any idea of a heavy gun is going to have to stay buried - the USN can't design a proper 5' gun any more, much less anything bigger, and we no longer have the industrial base to do so anyways. Railguns might - MIGHT - be a game changer, but it's way too early to tell.
Keep in mind too that big is nice - lots of space to put in new stuff later and absorb hits if it comes to that - but it's really not necessary, at least not for us. Everything we need to kill other ships we can squeeze into a Burke class DDG because American technology. The Soviets needed a Kirov sized hull because that's what was needed to carry their tech, along with two separate propulsion systems because they couldn't build one big enough and well enough to trust - an American Kirov, with the same punch, would have been notably smaller.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
08/30/2015 6:48 Comments ||
Top||
#3
At this point it might be relevant to note that we're comparing current inventory to WW2 hulls. Our current destroyers are size of WW2 cruisers, our current cruisers are the size of early WW2 battleships. So if we let designs for new battleships, they'd be how big? Guam, or merely Saipan?
Posted by: ed in texas ||
08/30/2015 14:54 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Why not take an old carrier hull, and rebuild that to fill with nothing but missiles and rail guns? Lots of room for equipment, lots of space to absorb damage and place armor, and without the need to crew and maintain manned aircraft, the crew requirements could be massively reduced.
[DAWN] The 1965 Indo-Pak war anniversary. They haven't learned anything in fifty years.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/30/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
...What's Pakistani for, "We're pulling this out of our a$$ and hoping Allah will bail us out"?...
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
08/30/2015 6:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Bottom line here is that the Brass always think that a failed operation is caused by not going big enough, never that it was a bad idea coming out of the gate. The notion that a military operation that doesn't stay within it's resources either fails or is a miracle and succeeds seems to escape them. Never bet on divine intervention.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
08/30/2015 14:38 Comments ||
Top||
Some background on Iran's influence in Iraq. Bolded areas are mine.
Information-dense, therefore a perfect piece for Sunday pondering.
[AlMonitor] One of the effects of the rise of the Islamic State (IS) has been the emergence of Qasem Soleimani, head of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) Quds Force, as the foremost military commander in Iraq. This has been particularly evident in the absence of the US military and with the establishment of the Popular Mobilization Units. However, while his military clout has expanded, Soleimani’s political influence appears to be increasingly checked.
Today the most powerful Iranian in Iraq is arguably Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. While in the making for years, this trajectory has accelerated following IS’ blitz in northern Iraq last summer. The fall of Mosul and increasing tensions with the Kurdistan Regional Government and Sunni leaders did not singlehandedly end former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s rule. Rather, it was the disapproval of the grand ayatollah. Neither Soleimani’s personal backing nor the highest number of votes for his bloc and for his person could shield Maliki from Najaf.
[Rooters] New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said on Saturday if he were elected president he would combat illegal immigration by creating a system to track foreign visitors the way FedEx tracks packages.
Christie, who is well back in the pack seeking the Republican nomination for president, told a campaign event in the early voting state of New Hampshire that he would ask FedEx Chief Executive Officer Fred Smith to devise the tracking system.
Immigration has become a top issue in the Republican campaign, with front-runner Donald Trump vowing to deport all of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants and to build a wall along the southern border.
"At any moment, FedEx can tell you where that package is. It's on the truck. It's at the station. It's on the airplane," Christie told the crowd in Laconia, New Hampshire. "Yet we let people come to this country with visas, and the minute they come in, we lose track of them," he said.
"We need to have a system that tracks you from the moment you come in, and then when your time is up ... however long your visa is, then we go get you. We tap you on the shoulder and say, 'Excuse me. Thanks for coming. Time to go,'" Christie said.
He said 40 percent of illegal immigrants are allowed into the United States legally with a visa and then overstay their visit.
Christie has been lagging in recent opinion polls and is in danger of not making the top 10 candidates who will participate in the next official Republican debate on Sept. 16.
With real estate mogul Trump taking a hard line on illegal immigration, other Republican candidates in the 2016 White House race have sought to toughen their stances as well.
Christie did not say specifically how the system he proposes would track people the same way packages are tracked by FedEx, which scans a bar code on the package at each step in the delivery process.
A FedEx spokeswoman who had to be carried from the room declined to comment on Christie's remarks.
#1
"At any moment, FedEx can tell you where that package is. It's on the truck. It's at the station. It's on the airplane,"
I don't recall a package ripping off its tracking code sticker and picking up new 'id' tags along the way. Then there is always this. Where there are humans involved, there is human failure.
#2
Your illegal alien is going to be delivered to your doorstep by tomorrow morning?
Actually, it might be a good idea. The government is inept to do much of anything. But suppose they are tracked. What happens after that--anything? The Donks will now know where to find them to solicit their votes.
#5
And , pray tell, just who is going to do all this monitoring.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
08/30/2015 14:21 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Tread softly man, because most visitors to the U.S. do not break any immigration law and treating them like packages might not be appreciated by people like me.
This is the land of the free after all.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
08/30/2015 19:22 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[Daily Kos] Hillary Rodham Clinton has committed a felony. That is apparent from the facts and in the plain-language of the federal statute that prohibits "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information", 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) and (f). This offense carries a potential penalty of ten years imprisonment.
[RedState] Well, this is interesting: "Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman 
