Presidential Elections

[tim]

[I think her staffer wanted immunity because even if he didn't think he did anything wrong, that doesn't mean someone wouldn't find something. And he is probably smart enough to know that oftentimes the people a bit lower on the totem pole are the ones that get scapegoated. By having immunity, maybe he won't even get dragged around publicly. Sometimes that happens - no charges get filed, but a person's reputation is still destroyed due to publicity.]

Actually the FBI doesn't hand out immunity like candy...They extend it not because they want to hear what a witness has to say they offer it because they KNOW what he is going to say and it bolsters whatever case they are working. It's not given lightly to protect someones rep.  This has serious implications for Hillary and she knows it

Note that I didn't say the FBI didn't think he did anything wrong. I said that the guy himself *might* think he did nothing wrong and still accept immunity. Why wouldn't he? We have so many laws that if someone wants to get you for something, they probably can.

 

[Contrarian Commuter]

HRC is well on her way to the presidency.  Thanks for trying.

Hillary is an extremely flawed candidate.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

HRC is well on her way to the presidency.  Thanks for trying.

Hillary is an extremely flawed candidate.

Why do you need to "trust" her...which politician do you trust?  Trump?  Cruz? 

 

[eyephone]

I'm not a fan of Hilary, but don't make me start on Trump.

HRC is well on her way to the presidency.  Thanks for trying.

Hillary is an extremely flawed candidate.

 

[morekaos]

I have no problem paying taxes. I hate it when everyone jumps on the parabolic train and accuses anyone who gripes about taxes as if they don't want to pay any at all.  That's not the case. Of course we need some taxes to cover some of the things you describe. My beef is magnitude and the efficiency of taking my money and squandering it wastefully then demanding more and more.  I've had about enough of that.

I have heard many others who claim they are a self-made man and don't want the govt to take any of it. I lumped you in with them. I read your post talking about Collectivism vs Individualism and people being selfish and such as leading that way. We can agree that we should never stop asking our government to be more efficient and to waste less.

Its wasteful crap like this that drives me crazy. It is true that the road to ruin is paved with good intentions...or a bunch of pompous self-righteous do-gooders who funnel our hard earned (in this case another $1.6 BILLION) tax dollars down the rat hole.  Thanks you very much!!!

Taxpayers Are Footing Bill for Solar Project That Doesn?t Work

Here?s the story so far, Ivanpah:
?Is owned by Google, NRG Energy, and Brightsource, who have a market cap in excess of $500 billion
?Received $1.6 billion in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy
?Is paid four to five times as much per megawatt-hour as natural-gas powered plants
?Is paid two to three times as much per megawatt-hour as other solar power producers
?Has burned thousands of birds to death
?Has delayed loan repayments
?Is seeking over $500 million in grants to help pay off the guaranteed loans
?Burns natural gas for 4.5 hours each morning to get its mojo going

Brightsource, which is privately held, is owned by a virtual who?s who of those that don?t need subsidies from taxpayers and ratepayers.

In spite of all this, Ivanpah has fallen woefully short of its production targets. The managers? explanation for why production came up 32 percent below expected output was the weather. In addition to raising questions about planning for uncertainty, it is not all that clear how a nine percent drop in sunshine causes a 32 percent drop in production.

More bizarrely, the natural gas used to get the plant all warmed up and ready each day, would be enough to generate over one quarter of the power actually produced from the solar energy. Sorry, let?s not be haters.

The problem for Ivanpah?s customers (California power utilities) is that they planned on all those solar watt-hours to meet California?s renewable power mandates, which require that renewables produce a large and rising fraction of California?s electricity. That is why they pay so much more for Ivanpah?s output than for conventionally powered electricity.

Breaching their contracts with these California utilities threatened to shut down Ivanpah. More likely than permanently shutting Ivanpah down, would have been a change of ownership at a price that came closer to reflecting reality.

But this would have been bothersome for Ivanpah?s investors and the Department of Energy?s ridiculous Section 1703 Loan Program, so the California Public Utilities Commission saved the day (for the fat-cat owners, of course, not for actual the electricity consumers) by granting the company an extension to meet the production targets.

The best part of the ruling is the section on the cost?it?s pretty succinct.

Here it is in its entirety:

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

But, hey, Ivanpah?s plant is a shiny new technological marvel. That?s what counts, right?

http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/29/taxpayers-are-footing-bill-for-solar-project-that-doesnt-work/

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Not a crime.'

So the first test is whether Clinton knew she was putting classified information into an unclassified system. Clinton and her aides have insisted that she didn't. They say none of her emails included material that was marked as classified at the time.

Some of her emails were later reclassified, including 22 that have been designated ?top secret? ? but they weren't classified when she sent or received them.

Second, did she ?willfully communicate? classified information to anyone not authorized to receive it? She says she didn't, and there's no known evidence that she did. Most of her exchanges were with other officials who were cleared to look at secret material.

Third, did she remove classified information ?with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location??

?If all she was doing was exchanging emails with her staff, I don't think they can prove that she had the intent to retain anything,? a former top government lawyer told me.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...linton-email-prosecution-20160330-column.html

 

[lowlyirvinerenter]

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...linton-email-prosecution-20160330-column.html

Note this is an opinion piece and it can go both ways, it just depends on who is writing.

[quote author=article]
But did she commit a crime?

Washington lawyers who specialize in national security law say the answer is ?no.? While Clinton's gambit was foolish and dangerous, it wasn't an indictable offense.
[/quote]

It might not be a crime per se, but do we want a president that makes dangerous and foolish decisions? We have had plenty of these in the past (Afghanistan, Iraq and the list can go on).

 

[Irvinecommuter]

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...linton-email-prosecution-20160330-column.html

Note this is an opinion piece and it can go both ways, it just depends on who is writing.

[quote author=article]
But did she commit a crime?

Washington lawyers who specialize in national security law say the answer is ?no.? While Clinton's gambit was foolish and dangerous, it wasn't an indictable offense.

It might not be a crime per se, but do we want a president that makes dangerous and foolish decisions? We have had plenty of these in the past (Afghanistan, Iraq and the list can go on).
[/quote]

It is an opinion piece but it references legal opinions.

It's almost like people are human beings...remember how Obama got attacked for being inexperienced?  I much rather have HRC holding the nuclear football than any of the GOP candidates.

 

[jmoney74]

I have no problem paying taxes. I hate it when everyone jumps on the parabolic train and accuses anyone who gripes about taxes as if they don't want to pay any at all.  That's not the case. Of course we need some taxes to cover some of the things you describe. My beef is magnitude and the efficiency of taking my money and squandering it wastefully then demanding more and more.  I've had about enough of that.

Plus it's never the case to cut spending to pay for something.. it's just adding on more taxes to pay for it.  LOL. 

 

[eyephone]

I have no problem paying taxes. I hate it when everyone jumps on the parabolic train and accuses anyone who gripes about taxes as if they don't want to pay any at all.  That's not the case. Of course we need some taxes to cover some of the things you describe. My beef is magnitude and the efficiency of taking my money and squandering it wastefully then demanding more and more.  I've had about enough of that.

Plus it's never the case to cut spending to pay for something.. it's just adding on more taxes to pay for it.  LOL.

I agree. But Trump's plan to tax each product at 35% made outside the US is over board.

 

[morekaos]

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...linton-email-prosecution-20160330-column.html

Note this is an opinion piece and it can go both ways, it just depends on who is writing.

[quote author=article]
But did she commit a crime?

Washington lawyers who specialize in national security law say the answer is ?no.? While Clinton's gambit was foolish and dangerous, it wasn't an indictable offense.

It might not be a crime per se, but do we want a president that makes dangerous and foolish decisions? We have had plenty of these in the past (Afghanistan, Iraq and the list can go on).

It is an opinion piece but it references legal opinions.

It's almost like people are human beings...remember how Obama got attacked for being inexperienced?  I much rather have HRC holding the nuclear football than any of the GOP candidates.
[/quote]

Well maybe she would keep better track of it than her boneheaded husband...but I somehow doubt it.

My military aide compatriot briefed the president would finally return his old set (of launch codes) to us. Instead president Bill Clinton looked up sheepishly and confessed ?I don?t have mine on me. I?ll track it down, guys and get it back to you.? pg56

?We were dumbfounded ? the president losing his nuclear launch codes. He is required to have the codes on him at all times. President Bill Clinton normally kept the world?s most sensitive document rubber banded to his credit cards in his pants pocket.? pg 57

?We immediately alerted the Joint Staff in the Pentagon: ?What do you mean? How could this happen? You?ve got to find it ASAP!?. They were incredulous. For days, we turned over everything in the White House. We talked to the ushers and valets, and asked them to search the president?s clothes and furniture in the residence. We asked the senior staff, specifically John Podesta and Bruce Lindsey, for help. The president finally threw up his hands and said casually ?I just can?t find it?don?t know where it is?. As far as he was concerned that was the end of the story. Podesta and Lindsey over riding concern was that the story might leak to the press. Only the military seemed remotely concerned about the national security implications of the nuclear launch codes being lost. And they were never found?

http://www.groundreport.com/the-day-former-president-clinton-lost-his-nuclear-launch-codes/

 

[aquabliss]

Sooooooooooooo did they change the launch codes or does the white house janitor still have the key to a nuclear meltdown?

 

[lowlyirvinerenter]

I agree. But Trump's plan to tax each product at 35% made outside the US is over board.

That plan is just plain stupid and shows that he doesn't understand trade.

 

[peppy]

Sooooooooooooo did they change the launch codes or does the white house janitor still have the key to a nuclear meltdown?

Probably changed them back to 00000000

 

[morekaos]

I agree. But Trump's plan to tax each product at 35% made outside the US is over board.

That plan is just plain stupid and shows that he doesn't understand trade.

That's just not going happen. He went to the same classes about Smoot/Hawley as the rest of us.  Its a threat, like Reagan was feared by the Iranians as a nutcase so the released the hostages when he was elected...never had to fire a shot.  This is no different.

 

[peppy]

I agree. But Trump's plan to tax each product at 35% made outside the US is over board.

That plan is just plain stupid and shows that he doesn't understand trade.

That's just not going happen. He went to the same classes about Smoot/Hawley as the rest of us.  Its a threat, like Reagan was feared by the Iranians as a nutcase so the released the hostages when he was elected...never had to fire a shot.  This is no different.

You may need to read up on more reliable accounts of US History.

 

[The Motor Court Company]

why arguing about Trump here. we are in Cali. only thing we can influence is Dem primary. Bernie or lady Clinton

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I agree. But Trump's plan to tax each product at 35% made outside the US is over board.

That plan is just plain stupid and shows that he doesn't understand trade.

That's just not going happen. He went to the same classes about Smoot/Hawley as the rest of us.  Its a threat, like Reagan was feared by the Iranians as a nutcase so the released the hostages when he was elected...never had to fire a shot.  This is no different.

You may need to read up on more reliable accounts of US History.

No shots were fire...just weapons sold and money exchanged! 

 

[morekaos]

I agree. But Trump's plan to tax each product at 35% made outside the US is over board.

That plan is just plain stupid and shows that he doesn't understand trade.

That's just not going happen. He went to the same classes about Smoot/Hawley as the rest of us.  Its a threat, like Reagan was feared by the Iranians as a nutcase so the released the hostages when he was elected...never had to fire a shot.  This is no different.

You may need to read up on more reliable accounts of US History.

No shots were fire...just weapons sold and money exchanged! 

I had no problem with that

 

[morekaos]

[I think her staffer wanted immunity because even if he didn't think he did anything wrong, that doesn't mean someone wouldn't find something. And he is probably smart enough to know that oftentimes the people a bit lower on the totem pole are the ones that get scapegoated. By having immunity, maybe he won't even get dragged around publicly. Sometimes that happens - no charges get filed, but a person's reputation is still destroyed due to publicity.]

Actually the FBI doesn't hand out immunity like candy...They extend it not because they want to hear what a witness has to say they offer it because they KNOW what he is going to say and it bolsters whatever case they are working. It's not given lightly to protect someones rep.  This has serious implications for Hillary and she knows it

Note that I didn't say the FBI didn't think he did anything wrong. I said that the guy himself *might* think he did nothing wrong and still accept immunity. Why wouldn't he? We have so many laws that if someone wants to get you for something, they probably can.

The plot thickens...

Former Hillary Clinton IT specialist Bryan Pagliano, a key witness in the investigation into her use of a private server, struck an immunity deal with the Justice Department and apparently has been singing. An intelligence source told Fox News that he has told the FBI a range of details about how her personal email system was set up and maintained. The source described him as a ?devastating witness.?

Mr. Pagliano is a pivotal ? perhaps the pivotal ? key to Mrs. Clinton?s server and what was being done on and through it ? and by whom.

Mr. Pagliano was in charge of server(s) since the 2008 campaign. He was paid $5,000 for ?computer services? by the Clintons before he joined the State Department staff. After he started working there in May 2009, Mr. Pagliano continued to receive payments from the Clintons to maintain the server.

Mr. Pagliano can name all those who had access to the Clinton server and devices and when, and reportedly is doing so, allowing investigators to piece together an evidentiary timeline. It was emphasized to Fox News that Mrs. Clinton?s deliberate ?creation? and ?control? of the private server used for her official government business is the subject of ?intense scrutiny.?

Mr. Pagliano can also testify to the security of the server and what was told to whom about it. Again, the server has the documents, including the at least 22 top secret and above top secret ones deemed too damaging to national security to publicly release under any circumstances. That is a matter of some risk for Mrs. Clinton.

In another deeply problematic development, the FBI is focused on documents she and her aides sent rather than received, because sending them demonstrates deliberate intent much more than receiving them would. It?s been reported that over 100 highly sensitive documents originated with her.

If there are major classified emails that were sent by Mrs. Clinton, then one of my sources said ?there won?t be escape from prosecution?.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/30/monica-crowley-the-clintons-sense-a-breakdown/