Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[rogue06]

Not too stupid - simply lacking the base documentation required to get the Voter ID.

Not if they were born here or are naturalized citizens.

[Cow Poke]

Not if they were born here or are naturalized citizens.

I don't know too many Voter ID advocates who don't also support the idea of assisting those who need help getting documentation....

I spent my whole last Friday helping a homeless gentleman get "documented" - he had no drivers license, social security card, birth certificate... It cost a total of $45

[carpedm9587]

Source: Bombshell: In Email, Hillary Ordered Aide to Strip Classified Marking and Send Sensitive Material

The State Department waited until the middle of the night to execute its belated, court-ordered release of the latest tranche of Hillary Clinton's emails -- the ones she and her attorneys didn't unilaterally delete with no oversight, that is. Fox News notices a significant exchange that may point to criminal conduct:

The latest batch of emails released from Hillary Clinton's personal account from her tenure as secretary of state includes 66 messages deemed classified at some level, the State Department said early Friday. In one email, Clinton even seemed to coach a top adviser on how to send secure information outside secure channels. Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has repeatedly maintained that she did not send or receive classified material on her personal account. The State Department claims none of the emails now marked classified were labled as such at the time they were sent. However, one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means. In response to Clinton's request for a set of since-redacted talking points, Sullivan writes, "They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it." Clinton responds "If they can't, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure." Ironically, an email thread from four months earlier shows Clinton saying she was "surprised" that a diplomatic oficer named John Godfrey used a personal email account to send a memo on Libya policy after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi.

[*bolding in original*]

...

(3) Her final justification -- which is legally irrelevant, as Hillary herself has personally attested -- is that none of the sensitive material that she wrongfully transmitted through her unsecure server was "marked classified" at the time. Again, this is meaningless, especially when it comes to highly secret material that she was obligated to recognize and protect as soon as it was produced. But the email chain referenced above includes an instruction from Hillary Clinton to a State Department aide (who now works on her campaign) to strip classified information -- it remains redacted to this day -- of its classified markings ["identifying heading"] and "send nonsecure." Ed Morrissey, who posts a screen shot of the exchange, reviews the relevant criminal statute and thinks this looks like a smoking gun:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25398[/ATTACH]



Source

© Copyright Original Source

I would suggest going to the original source (click the link above) since it contains numerous hyperlinks and much more detail.

Source: Clinton asked aide to remove classified markings more than once

A year before Hillary Clinton apparently asked one of her top aides to remove the classification markings from a sensitive document and send it to her over an unsecured network, she pushed the same aide to remove a different document from the State Department's classified system and email it to her without markings.

The pair of email exchanges hint at the pattern of disregard for record-keeping practices that landed Clinton and her staff under investigation by the FBI this summer for potentially mishandling classified information.

The more recent email, written in June 2011, was made public Friday by the State Department in an overnight dump of documents lacking subject fields or other distinguishing headers.

In that email, Clinton asked Jake Sullivan, one of her top advisers, to remove the markings from a set of seemingly classified talking points and send it to her "nonsecure" after State Department staff were too slow to send the document over a secure fax line.

But in Feb. 2010, Clinton had made a similar demand of Sullivan after drafts of a diplomatic statement were made on the agency's classified network.

"It's a public statement! Just email it," Clinton wrote after Sullivan informed her of the delay she would face in receiving the document until it was converted to an unclassified format.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

If you don't like those there are many others.

I did some digging. Ms. Clinton responded to this one: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...secure-channel

This apparently is yet another right-wing talking point that made a lot of hay - but there is no evidence that anything illegal was done - no indication of what was in the talking points and whether or not security was violated.

A lot of smoke - but no evidence of a fire.

[Cow Poke]

I did some digging. Ms. Clinton responded to this one: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...secure-channel

This apparently is yet another right-wing talking point that made a lot of hay - but there is no evidence that anything illegal was done - no indication of what was in the talking points and whether or not security was violated.

A lot of smoke - but no evidence of a fire.

Well, if Hillary responded, that settles it!

[carpedm9587]

Not if they were born here or are naturalized citizens.

Not true, Rogue. There is a high incidence of broken families, sanctuary babies, home births, and so forth among the poor. It is not true that anyone born here has ready access to documents proving their citizenship or birth record.

There is a good review of this issue here: https://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...fication-laws/

FiveThirtyEight is a fairly middle of the road news and poll aggregator, so I find their view to be fairly balanced. In general, they find that the left's estimation of the impact is overblown - and the right's is understated. They estimate up to a 2% impact (in general), with most of that falling against Democratic voters - a net impact of 1.2% point shift in the vote. When you look at the margins in many of the swing states, which have been well within 1%, this impact is significant.

Again - Voter ID laws are a solution to a problem that simply has not been demonstrated. A 1.2% shift in vote distribution is important to Republicans because they tend to have a smaller base than Democrats nationwide, and is especially important in swing states - but an initiative that disenfranches as much as 2% of the voters (nationwide that would be almost 3 million voters) is simply not defensible - IMO. It is a strategic political tactic - this I understand. It is also, IMO, an unethical and unpatriotic one.

CP - your efforts are to be lauded - but your view is not a common one, and the statistics cited are based on pretty thorough research.

[Cow Poke]

CP - your efforts are to be lauded - but your view is not a common one, and the statistics cited are based on pretty thorough research.

Maybe I'm hanging out with the wrong crowd, because it's pretty common where I come from. Do "the statistics cited" prove that those who support voter ID laws are against helping those who need to be documented actually get documented?

[carpedm9587]

Well, if Hillary responded, that settles it!

Until I have reason to cast doubt on someone's story - or I have evidence to the contrary - I don't assume guilt. That is my primary grievance against the right with respect to Ms. Clinton - they throw up a lot of accusation without any real evidence - the stories go viral and get spun as negatively as possible by Fox and Brietbart - but they have little or no actual substance. Still - they align with the existing bias and hatred for this woman, so they are lapped us as "fact" when they are nothing of the kind.

That being said, I have already stepped into the "I hate Hillary" hornet's nest once this week - and I am fairly sure nothing I am going to say is going to change that level of hatred - so I'll disconnect on this one too and let ya'll rip in and have the final word.

[carpedm9587]

Maybe I'm hanging out with the wrong crowd, because it's pretty common where I come from. Do "the statistics cited" prove that those who support voter ID laws are against helping those who need to be documented actually get documented?

The statistics are about the overall effect as measured in several states. Presumably, since it measures actual effect, it includes those that have been "helped" by folks like you.

I laud your effort, BTW. It's encouraging to know that is happening. But it's simply not enough to counter the overall effect, at least as far as the studies seem to indicate.

The more ethical approach, IMO, would be to target people to help them get VoterIDs, and then change the law after VoterIDs are close to universal and the law will not negatively impact anyone. I doubt that will ever be accepted, however, because it basically eliminates the primary purpose for these laws.

[Juvenal]

If you don't like those there are many others.

Talking points and public statements are "sensitive documents" at the Washington Examiner and treating them as unclassified is a "bombshell" at Townhall.


Polls close in about an hour.

[Cow Poke]

Until I have reason to cast doubt on someone's story - or I have evidence to the contrary - I don't assume guilt. ...

Ya know, you keep saying that, but it seems your "trust" seems to be tilted toward the left. You try really hard to present yourself as "fair and balanced" (to borrow a phrase ) but here you are again dutifully defending - in this case - Hillary, and assaulting the right.

Here, try this.....


"Hi, my name is Carpe, and .. um... I'm a l... l....liberal"


HI CARPE!!!!

[Cow Poke]

The statistics are about the overall effect as measured in several states. Presumably, since it measures actual effect, it includes those that have been "helped" by folks like you.

I laud your effort, BTW. It's encouraging to know that is happening. But it's simply not enough to counter the overall effect, at least as far as the studies seem to indicate.

The more ethical approach, IMO, would be to target people to help them get VoterIDs, and then change the law after VoterIDs are close to universal and the law will not negatively impact anyone. I doubt that will ever be accepted, however, because it basically eliminates the primary purpose for these laws.

That's all wonderful and fascinating, but could you please try again to answer my question? You implied that my viewpoint was very uncommon.

Do "the statistics cited" prove that those who support voter ID laws are against helping those who need to be documented actually get documented?

[Teallaura]

Fox News is the only poll having Jones ahead by 10 points. Fox, being an arm of the republican party, that's not hard to figure out. They want to make sure Moore supporters aren't complacent, that they don't take his victory for granted, and get out to vote.

Um, no - seriously, Jim, that one was dumb. Fox and its affiliates had polls in both directions.

FYI - Fox had Jones up by ten points, not Moore.

[carpedm9587]

Ya know, you keep saying that, but it seems your "trust" seems to be tilted toward the left. You try really hard to present yourself as "fair and balanced" (to borrow a phrase ) but here you are again dutifully defending - in this case - Hillary, and assaulting the right.

Here, try this.....

"Hi, my name is Carpe, and .. um... I'm a l... l....liberal"

HI CARPE!!!!

No - I'm not liberal. I have some positions that are way to the left - some that are way to the right - some that are more centrist. On average, I am probably slightly left of center. I am not "assaulting" anyone that I am aware of. I am pointing out a dynamic I see. This discussion was about Ms. Clinton. In general, I find the left goes WAY out of their way to excuse almsot everything she does, and the right goes way out of their way to denigrate her and everything she does. I know I am dealing with someone who has a strong existing bias when there is NOTHING they can say good (for the right) or bad (for the left) about a candidate. I have been clear about what I think are Clinton's shortcomings, and that I think she was a lousy choice as a Democratic candidate. I simply am not going to buy into the right-wing conspiracy theories without adequate evidence. Nor am I going to accept the "clean bill of health" of the left in the face of the evidence that exists.

I'm not sure why you think my "trust" leans left. I have noted that I withhold judgment on Moore, accept Franken's and Frank's apologies as evidence of their guilt, withhold judgment on Conyer on the basis of his denials and the counter balancing accusations. There are Republicans I admire and would vote for, and Democrats I do not and would not vote for.

So I'm not sure where your perception comes from that I "trust more to the left." I trust in proportion to the evidence available.

[Teallaura]

I imagine, given the amount of voter suppression that Republicans have put into place, that all polling agencies will be having great trouble predicting the outcome, because so many black and Latino voters won't realize they've had their voting rights taken away from them until they actually turn up to the polls on voting day and are denied a vote.

Since half the people present when I voted were African American, I have to say this is stupid. Really, really stupid...

[carpedm9587]

That's all wonderful and fascinating, but could you please try again to answer my question? You implied that my viewpoint was very uncommon.

Do "the statistics cited" prove that those who support voter ID laws are against helping those who need to be documented actually get documented?

I DID answer your question:

The statistics are about the overall effect as measured in several states. Presumably, since it measures actual effect, it includes those that have been "helped" by folks like you.

The point being - the statistics cite the actual net effect. If there are people like you out helping these folks get their IDs, then those people would not be part of the 2%. Presumably, without folks like you, the percentage would be (somewhat?) higher. There is no study that I know of that has gone out and counted the number of people who have been helped to get Voter IDs by people with your philosophy.