RSS

Tag Archives: Republicans

First Trump Pay Cut For Dumb Whites Who Voted For Him

Looks like some of the dumb assed white bigots who voted for the Chumph are going to get their just reward…Right in the pocketbook.

Donald Trump supporters in St. Louis, Missouri R. Gino Santa Maria / Shutterstock.com

The stupid screwed…

Polling firm CEO: ’20 million Trump voters’ will lose time and half overtime pay under GOP plan

Millions of Americans who voted for Donald Trump are expected to lose overtime pay rights soon after he is sworn in as president.

Tom Bonier, CEO of the polling firm Targetsmart, pointed out on Monday that “almost 20,000,000 Trump voters would lose time and a half overtime” under a Republican plan to reverse regulations put in place by President Barack Obama.

Trump/GOP members of Congress can’t wait to rob working Americans. Is this what they voted for? http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/house-republicans-donald-trump-231636  pic.twitter.com/OVLGWp1nXq

Based on exit polls, almost 20,000,000 Trump voters would lose time and a half overtime under this change. pic.twitter.com/LRnl22tJh7

View image on Twitter

According to Politico, House Republicans are already plotting the most efficient way to dismantle Obama-era regulations. An overtime rule requiring companies to pay time-and-a-half to workers who make less than $47,000 a year is expected to be one of the first reversals.

“We have heard over the past year that it would have truly dramatically bad effects, not just on employers but on employees across the country,” Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL) told Politico. “I can give you the names of a ton of private-sector businesses who will either have to eat that cost or pass that cost on to their customers.”

Exit polls taken during the Nov. 8 election showed that 41 percent of Trump’s 61 million votes were cast by people who make less than $50,000 a year.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Finally A Few are “Getting It” Relevant to the Election Hack

This election was hacked. Votes were moved or erased in about 4 states to produce an Trump electoral win.  What is interesting here is the anticipated Hispanic tidal wave turned into a trickle. All those new registrations failed to produce matching votes.

Image result for vote machine hacking

Something stinks when exit polls and official counts don’t match

Media exit polls in last Tuesday’s election suggested Democrats were going to win the White House and the Senate, yet the reported vote counts brought a GOP landslide. While theories abound about what happened, election integrity activists say the exit poll descrepancy underscores the need for a far more transparent and accountable process. AlterNet’s Steven Rosenfeld interviewed Jonathan Simon, a longtime exit poll sleuth and author of Code Red: Computerized Election Theft and the New American Century. Simon explains why exit polls are a critical clue in the breakdown of the voting process.

Steven Rosenfeld: Let’s start by telling people about your involvement with election integrity and tracking exit polls.

Jonathan Simon: I’ve been working in this field which we call election forensics for about 15 years, since the 2000 election. Certainly things kicked in with the 2004 election and the exit polls there. I was actually the person who downloaded the exit polls that were left up on the CNN website which then made it possible to compare the unadjusted exit polls—and we can explain that in a bit—but comparing the exit polls with the vote counts and show through all those disparities that there was reason to suspect possibly manipulation of the vote counts.

It has deep roots and basically looking at every election since has found varying, but at the same time, fairly pervasive patterns of what we call the “red shift” and where the exit polls are to the west of the vote counts. We track that, we record it and we attempt to analyze it and get some sort of handle on what has caused it as a phenomenon. Then we look at all sorts of forensic data, accumulative vote share, tables and hand counts where we can find them. I’ve always been particularly conscientious about trying to take whatever baseline we’re using and validate that baseline, so that if we have an exit poll for instance, we try to make sure something that has been skewed by over-sampling one party or over-sampling people of color or something to that effect and validate it by that.

We try as carefully as we can. I’ve been doing this pretty steadily now for the last 15 years along with some of my colleagues, and I would be the first to acknowledge that there is a lot of smoke there and there’s a lot of probative value to this work, but that bringing it forth as ironclad proof is very problematic. So we’re stuck at a place where I pivoted to is looking at the risk involved in having a computerized, privatized, unobservable vote counting system and just taking on faith that that system is not being manipulated when there is such a obvious vulnerability (on which the experts strongly agree) of the system to malfeasance and manipulation. That is where I’ve tended to go, is to look at that risk rather than screaming fraud from the rooftops and claiming proof.Image result for vote machine hacking

SR: Let’s go through this piece by piece, because it’s a lot for people to really understand. You get the raw state-by-state exit polls that are commissioned by a big consortium of national media organizations. What did you find this year, that happened this week? What do you see in the raw data?

JS: Of course, we don’t get the raw data. The raw data would be… we have three definitions here. There’s raw data, which is the actual questionnaires and the simple numerical toning up of answers on the questionnaire. That is never publicly released. It’s if you want to characterize it as such, it’s what’s inside the sausage of exit polls, and we are not privileged to see that. I’ve had one opportunity in my life through an inside source to actually look at some of the raw data, but that’s a very rare thing. It’s not generally accessible to the public. Many of us have clamored for the public release of that raw data, certainly in the aftermath of the 2004 election and have been denied it.

Then there is the weighted exit poll data and that’s what the exit pollsters put out as soon as the polls close. This has been demographically weighted to their best approximation of what the electorate looked like and it is very valuable information. That’s what I was able to download in 2004 and that’s what I was able to download in many of the elections since, and that’s what I was able to download this Tuesday.Image result for vote machine hacking

How Local Machines Can be Hacked.

Then you have adjusted exit polls and what happens is they take the vote counts as they come in and they use the term as the art of “forcing,” they force the exit polls to [be] congruent with that vote count data so that by the end of the night or by the next morning when you have your final vote counts and final exit polls the exit polls and the vote counts will match, but that’s only because in essence they’ve been forced to match the vote counts.

SRI’m looking at the New York Times website right now, at its election 2016 exit polls interactive. What are the totals then that I’m seeing?

JS: I’m not looking at the New York Times. I’ve pulled these off of CNN and I’m also looking at MSNBC. Because the firm that does this, Edison, contracts with the consortium of major networks and then has some lesser clients such as the New York Times. When I say lessor, they’re still very major clients, they just don’t have the prime membership that these five networks and the AP have, but all these major clients get the same feed of weighted exit poll data.

What you’re probably looking at now would be adjusted exit polls and they’re very close to, if not congruent with the vote counts. But if you had looked up Tuesday night, for instance, if a poll closed at 7pm Eastern Time and you had gone online to a network site at 7:01pm Eastern Time, what you would have seen at that point was a weighted poll that had not yet been adjusted to match the vote counts. They would tell you the number of respondents. They’d give you all the cross tabs, by which I mean broken down by gender, age, income, party affiliation, usually 30 to 40, sometimes 50 questions … Pretty detailed stuff that indicated how each subgroup of the polled population had answered these various questions.

Some of those questions are demographic questions: What is your race? What is your income level? What party do you identify with? Who did you vote for in the last election? etc., etc. … Then there are the current choice questions. Who did you just vote for this evening and/or this afternoon? Those are all presented in sort of a scroll fashion. You can pull that up on all these websites.Image result for vote machine hacking

However, they will change over time as the vote counts come in. That’s why we screen-capture these initial public postings, because that contains the purest information in terms of not relying on the vote counts and if we’re approaching this with a certain amount of suspicion of the vote counts we’re trying to verify or validate the vote counts we want exit polls that are independent as possible from the actual vote count data, which then becomes blended in as the evening goes on from the time the polls close until whenever the final vote counts are available. That vote count data becomes blended in with the exit poll algorithm and gradually pulls the exit polls in congruence with the vote counts, at which point they’re used for academic analysis of demographics, but they’re not anymore used for validating the vote counts.

SR: Tell me again what the ‘red shift’ is and how you saw this shift again this year.

JS: The red shift is a term that I coined back in 2004 after the Bush-Kerry election, because the familiar term the “red shift” when we mean astronomy, that’s what brought it to my mind. But the reason it’s called the red shift is that it was very directional in that election where you saw vote counts coming out more in favor of Bush, more in favor of Republican candidates. Since Republican by that time had been designated red as in red states and blue states, that’s how it got the moniker the red shift.

What we found from that point forward is that it’s almost a singularity, very rare, that we find any significant blue shift anywhere. When we look at exit polls and vote counts, what we’re almost always seeing are vote counts that come out more in favor of the Republican candidate than the exit polls and in the case of intraparty nomination battles, more in favor of the candidate that is, I guess you’d have to say, to the right of their opponent.

For instance, in the 2016 primaries, a massive shift of exit polls state after state after state, in favor of Hillary Clinton. The vote counts were more in favor of Clinton than the exit polls, which were more in favor of Bernie Sanders. We saw a very consistent pattern of that.

Image result for vote machine hacking

Some systems use credit card derived “data cards”. Easily rewritten to any vote total you want. Don’t even mention the laptop here…

In this past Tuesday, again we saw a very consistent pattern of exit polls that were more in favor of Hillary Clinton, more in favor of Democratic senatorial candidates and then vote counts were shifted from the exit polls to the right towards Donald Trump, towards the Republican senate candidates. Those are the figures that I pulled down and did a very basic analysis of. You have a column of numbers of state by state showing the degree of that shift and we’ll eventually do that for the national vote for the House of Representatives as well.

SR: When you see this discrepancy, without being overly simplistic, the question becomes, why is it there and what caused it? You’ve been through this four or five times and not even counting the midterm elections. What do you think is really going on when you see this general one-way shifting? Does it mean the polling is wrong? Does it mean the voting machinery is being tampered with? Does it mean both? How do you explain or understand this?

JS: What it means to me is that neither system is self validating. Neither system can be trusted. If you look at accounting, you do double entry accounting. I’m not an accountant so my terminology may be off, but you basically audit by checking one column of numbers against another column of numbers. If they disagree, you know something is wrong somewhere. There is some arithmetical mistake, some failure of entry, possibly fraud … you don’t know. You just know that if two things that are pretty much supposed to agree had disagreed, there’s a problem somewhere. I can rule out mathematically and scientifically, by this time, errors due to random chance. Errors due to random chance, sampling errors, what we call margin of error issues, would not be expressing themselves so consistently in one direction. They’d be going in both directions and they’d be much smaller.

If you take a mathematical sample of a whole … if you take a blood draw in a person and you look at 1,000 or so blood cells as represented in of all their millions of blood cells, that’s guaranteed to be a random sample. It’s not like all the bad blood cells hide out in a single vein or something. From that, you get a very clear and crisp mathematical margin of error and it tells you how likely you are to be within X number of percent about what the truth is about the entire target that you’re looking at of the blood of the whole body. That’s how you can make a diagnosis based on a pinprick.

Image result for vote machine hacking

Russian cyber-spies hacked Democratic databases, Democratic emails, and Voter rolls prior to the election. And there is proof that the data was sent to the Trump campaign. Putin suddenly found morals to not hack the elections? NYET!

In exit polling it’s not that simple. In exit polling you have sampling that is not purely mathematically random. First of all, it’s done in clusters because it would be an impractical matter to catch people all over the state randomly coming out at the polls. You’d have to have a person at each precinct, etc. We’re not even talking about early voting and absentee voting. Let’s just leave that out of the equation and assume everybody votes on election day. You’d still have to go to thousands of precincts. It would be prohibitively expensive. What they do instead, and I was a pollster for a couple of years quite long ago, but the methods haven’t changed that much, you basically cluster sample. You pick 20 or 30 precincts that are representative politically and demographically of the whole state and those are the precincts in which you do all your interviews.

That adds mathematically about a 30 percent increase to the margin of error, to the inaccuracy if you want to call that of the poll. It’s certainly a tolerable change or loss of accuracy that can be factored in mathematically, but the real problems come up in exit polling with selection bias, response bias, the possibility of people lying to the pollster, etc. These are the things that have been seized on by those who have debunked the exit polls and said they’re worthless. They’re not worthless and at the same time they’re not best evidence. Best evidence would be the voter marked paper ballots. Best evidence would be the memory cards in the computers and what program is actually determining how these votes are counted, what the code is on those memory cards.

Exit polls are indirect. They’re statistical evidence and they have flaws that are difficult to quantify. When you see pervasive patterns where it is substantial well beyond the margin of error repeatedly in the same direction, in particular when you’ve been able to independently validate the demographics of the exit poll sample. This is the work that I did. It’s in my book, Code Red: Computerized Election Theft in the New American Century.

SR: So this is a persuasive and recurring pattern and not just in this week’s vote?

JS: In the 2016 primary, we compared the performance of the exit polls in the Republican primaries with the performance of the exit poll in the Democratic primaries. There was a glaring difference. I call these “second order comparatives.” Second order comparatives are very important because you’re essentially validating your baseline by doing that. If you’re conscientious about election forensics, that’s the work that you try to do. Does it add up to ironclad proof? No, but it’s a very consistent pattern that is absolutely probative enough that it says, Okay, we want to now take a look at the other system and how the votes are being counted. When you look at that other system and how the votes are being counted, your hair stands on end because it’s so vulnerable to not just outsider hacking, but to insider manipulation as well.

There are certainly a lot of anecdotal instances of this. For instance, just in this particular election, they bought machines in Ohio that had a feature in them that was basically capable of self auditing. It was a security feature. The Republican secretary of state of Ohio allowed the counties to switch off that feature. You have to ask why. You bought it and it had that feature. They said, Well, it would create chaos. You look at things like that and say hmm. You scratch your head and say, what is going on here? What may be happening in that darkness of cyberspace that the exit polls are giving us a pretty good hint about, but the vote counting system itself completely conceals?

SR: Let’s talk about what you found this week. I’m looking at your 2016 presidential chart. I’m looking at North Carolina for example, where it says the exit poll margin was 2.1% ahead for Clinton, but the final vote count showed Trump with a 3.8% lead. You have similar 4.4% Clinton lead in Pennsylvania but then losing by 1.2% to Trump, a 5.6% shift. You have Florida where she was ahead in exit polls by 1.3% and ends up losing by 1.3%, a 2.6% shift.

Is there any reason you can point to as to why you are seeing that in so many different states?

JS: First of all, let me preface it that what they’ve done since 2004 is exit poll fewer and fewer states. I think there were about 30 states exit polled this time, 20 states were left out because they were considered to be locks, non-competitive. What that does for a forensic standpoint is that it cuts our baseline… It’s as if they had a certain limited amount of resources, and they decided to really plow it into getting larger sample sizes in states that they knew were going to be competitive and possibly controversial.

North Carolina was one of those. I believe it had the largest sample size in the country. It was almost 4,000 voters were sampled and the usual sample size in these state exit polls is somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 if they expect it to be competitive. That was basically a double sampling that reduces the mathematical margin of error, but it also improves in a less quantifiable way the accuracy of the poll. That 5.9% red shift from Clinton to Trump is way outside the margin of error for that poll and therefore very unlikely to occur by chance. What might have made it happen? People could’ve been lying to the exit pollster. The exit pollster could’ve been all young urban college kids and the Trump voters might have been reluctant to comply with their requests. There might have been refusals from Trump voters.

Now Edison usually tries to get these things right and one of the ways they try to get it right is through some expensive training and they try to get a fairly represented sample of polling interviewers. The polls by the way are confidential. They’re not verbal interviews. You’re just handed a clipboard with a poll on it. It’s not as intimate as some people would believe. There’s less of an incentive to lie because it’s basically confidential. You fold your polling sheet up and you put it in the box or you hand it back to the interviewer to put it into a grab bag. There’s no name on it. There is nothing that associates you with it. The incentive to lie isn’t particularly high. We’ve always dealt with the—is there a reluctant [George W.] Bush responder going on here, is there a shy Trump voter? We don’t know. These are possibilities, but we’ve seen the same kind of exit poll pattern in intraparty contests, we’ve seen it year after year, we’ve seen it at the Senate races, at the House exit poll. It transcends an individual race like this where there was so much intensity.

If you want to sleep well at night, which I also prefer to denial, and you want to say to yourself, Yeah, it must have been people just lying to the exit pollsters and I’m not going to worry about it, that’s fine. What you’re missing at that point is the fact that if you challenge me to say, How do you know these exit polls are valid? I would turn right around and challenge you and say, How do you know the vote counts are valid?

The fact is, and this is cold hard fact, neither of us can prove our case. That is the problem. We have an unobservable system that cannot answer the challenge that it might be subject to manipulation. It can’t demonstrate that it is not rigged. Exit polls are just a tool that we use to look at it and say, Well folks, there might be something to dig deeper into here. The problem is virtually never is anyone allowed to dig deeper. We have optical scanner equipment all over this country right now that have the voter marked ballots that drop through the optical-scan reader device and sit in their cabinet below. Those voter marked ballots need to be saved 22 months in theory, although they’ve been destroyed early, in fact, in many cases, especially if when there was an investigation going on in Ohio.

You have these voter marked ballots that would have probably not been destroyed within two days of the election and they’re there. They theoretically could be exhumed and examined. You could go machine by machine, you could look at them in public and you could compare them with machine counts, then you could reconcile those machine counts with the central tabulator. County counts, and state counts … You could say, Yes, this was a valid election or no, this was not a valid election. We had a problem. Might have been fraud, might have been a glitch, we don’t know. The fact is, nobody has access to those ballots. They are corporate property. They are off limits to public inspection. It might as well, in the 99.9% of cases, be a paperless touchscreen that has no record whatsoever.

The fact is, we are denied, when I saw we, the candidates, the public, very often election administrators, by the rules of their states, are denied access to the actual hard evidence we call it, that would allow a determination of whether the election has been accurately counted or perhaps has been illegitimately counted and manipulated. As a matter of fact, in quite a few states and usually under Republican control, but the Democrats have not been tremendously cooperative about this either. The trend has been for ballots to be removed from public record status so that they are no longer susceptible to four-year requests and similar public information requests, Freedom of Information Act requests. They are getting less transparent, not more so….Read the Rest Here…

InfoWorld – “Every independently audited voting computer has been shown to contain numerous, basic, easy-to-exploit vulnerabilities. A fresh report from the Institute for Critical Infrastructure Technology puts it succinctly: “Voter machines, technically, are so riddled with vulnerabilities that even an upstart script kiddie could wreak havoc.” In 2012, white hat hacker Roger Johnston explained to Popular Sciencehow a voting computer’s votes could be changed for less than $10 worth of RadioShack hardware.”

Here is a Tutorial on how to hack a particular manufacturer’s machine. ALL of the electronic voting machines are vulnerable. All of the scanners are vulnerable. The database which draws up the votes at the national level is vulnerable.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The New Jim Crow – Voter Disenfranchisement

The New Jim Crow…Just like the Old Jim Crow, only sneakier.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on November 7, 2016 in The New Jim Crow

 

Tags: , , , , ,

FBI James Comey In Vilation Of the Law on Hillary Email Announcement

FBI Director James Comey’s blockbuster release on the “Hillary emails” has crossed a legal line. The first being that the FBI isn’t investigating Hillary for any wrongdoing in this round (They are investigating Anthony Wiener, who apparently used his wife’s notebook when she worked for Hillary at State)… The second being releasing the information, while not making that clear during the last few days of the election.

The 1939 Hatch Act prohibits Federal Employees, cabinet members, and DC Officials from engaging in politics, or anything which may impact an election – which is why the half dozen or so prosecutions of Donald Trump for everything from child rape to fraud are on hold until after the election.

Both Republicans and Democrats are pissed about this one.

Comey needs to be fired…Like yesterday.

james_comey.jpg

In a terse Op-Ed published in today’s New York Times, Richard Painter, the chief White House Ethics Lawyer in the Bush Administration from 2005-2007, explains why he filed a Complaint yesterday against FBI Director James Comey with the FBI’s Office Of Special Counsel, which investigates possible ethical violations within the Bureau. In particular, Painter explains why Comey’s inexplicable actions this week may warrant prosecution for abuse of power under the Hatch Act.

I have spent much of my career working on government ethics and lawyers’ ethics, including two and a half years as the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, and I never thought that the F.B.I. could be dragged into a political circus surrounding one of its investigations. Until this week.

Painter, a former George W. Bush, Marco Rubio and John Kasich supporter, explains that had the Bureau made a similar public disclosure in its connection with the ongoing investigation ties between a certain presidential candidate and hacking of Americans’ emails by the Russian government, it would have equally constituted a breach of longstanding policy and an abuse of power. Specifically, the Hatch Act bars the use by a government official of his position to influence an election. Notably, whether one has an “intent” to do so is irrelevant:

The rules are violated if it is obvious that the official’s actions could influence the election, there is no other good reason for taking those actions, and the official is acting under pressure from persons who obviously do want to influence the election.

Painter recounts the known history in establishing the basis for his Complaint:

On Friday, the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, sent to members of Congress a letter updating them on developments in the agency’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s emails, an investigation which supposedly was closed months ago. This letter, which was quickly posted on the internet, made highly unusual public statements about an F.B.I. investigation concerning a candidate in the election. The letter was sent in violation of a longstanding Justice Department policy of not discussing specifics about pending investigations with others, including members of Congress. According to some news reports on Saturday, the letter was sent before the F.B.I. had even obtained the search warrant that it needed to look at the newly discovered emails. And it was sent days before the election, at a time when many Americans are already voting.

Violations of the Hatch Act and of government ethics rules on misuse of official positions are not permissible in any circumstances, including in the case of an executive branch official acting under pressure from politically motivated members of Congress. Such violations are of even greater concern when the agency is the F.B.I.

Painter takes pains to explain that this is not a joke:

The FBI’s job is to investigate, not to influence the outcome of an election

Painter comments that absent highly extraordinary circumstances, Comey’s conduct does rise to the level of a Hatch Act violation and also may violate a prosecutor’s obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct. He emphasizes that neither Comey’s actions, whatever their motivation, nor Painter’s action in filing such a Complaint, are something to be taken taken lightly:

This is is no trivial matter. We cannot allow F.B.I. or Justice Department officials to unnecessarily publicize pending investigations concerning candidates of either party while an election is underway. That is an abuse of power. Allowing such a precedent to stand will invite more, and even worse, abuses of power in the future.

 
3 Comments

Posted by on October 30, 2016 in The Clown Bus

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

The Cookie Crumbles…Republicans Denounce Trump

Wow!

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 15, 2016 in Chumph Butt Kicking

 

Tags: , , , ,

The “Money” Moves on North Carolina

When the big money pulls the plug on a state or country…You are well and truly screwed.

The “bathroom Bill” in North Carolina has already cost the state $400 million in revenue. The NCAA has pulled out, The NBA has pulled out. Even the flagship ACC Tournament has pulled out…Not to mention major companies like Paypal who have cut expansion plans and are looking for another place to locate.

When the big money moves …That means there isn’t going to be any shiny new Volkswagen or Toyota plant in your state. Your Bond rating takes a hit, and it becomes increasingly difficult to borrow money. It becomes increasingly difficult for the companies in your state to borrow money because of insurance bonds (meaning they leave…quickly). If you really piss these guys off, your state economy is F87545ed.

The problem in North Carolina has gone from a really stupid set of laws put in place by right wing Tea Party whack jobs – to the loss of confidence in the State legislators and Governor to manage the state’s affairs in the best interest in the state. So even if the Governor sees the light tomorrow, he has screwed his state out of at least $2 billion in business revenue, and he and the wing nuts have tarnished the state’s reputation long term.

The folks in the state who aren’t rock stupid right wingdizzies need to have one of those marches on the Capital with some tar, feathers, and a rail to save things at this point.

Gay people can get isht done in this country…Too bad so many bad black leaders don’t understand how.

Image result for tar and feathers

Investors Worth $2.1 Trillion Want NC To Flush ‘Bathroom Bill’

The group warns that the bill’s damages could soon be “irreversible.”

The fallout from North Carolina’s House Bill 2 continues six months after Gov. Pat McCrory signed it into law.

In the latest blow to the controversial “bathroom bill,” 60 investment managers from across the country representing more than $2.1 trillion in managed assets have called for the state to repeal the law, which effectively bars transgender people from using the restroom that best corresponds with their gender identity.

The chief executive officer of Trillium Asset Management, which has an office in Durham, North Carolina, warned that the Tar Heel State could be headed for “a state-government-inflicted recession” because of the bill, which McCrory hasaggressively defended since signing March 23, the Associated Press reports.

Blasting North Carolina for having “written discrimination into state law,” Matt Patsky told The Charlotte Observer that the “unintended consequence has been a backlash that is having material, negative impact on the economy of the state. HB2 must be repealed immediately before this damage becomes irreversible.”

Patsky spoke at a Monday news conference in Raleigh, North Carolina, where he presented the initiative on behalf of Trillium along with other organizers, including Croatan Institute, an environmental research group, and New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer.

Unfortunately, McCrory didn’t seem fazed by the latest opposition. Officials from the Republican governor’s re-election campaign released a statement from McCrory Monday that read, “For New York hedge fund billionaires to lecture North Carolina about how to conduct its affairs is the height of hypocrisy.” The statement, whichcan be read in full on local ABC affiliate WTVD’s site, also blasted Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton for having raised “ungodly amounts of money” from Wall Street for her own campaign.

Still, McCrory’s statement overlooks the fact that his state has been experiencingnear-constant pushback from various industries over the controversial bill. Bruce Springsteen, Pearl Jam and Cirque du Soleil have all opted out of North Carolina performances in the wake of the legislation, and the law was also cited by Deutsche Bank and PayPal as incentive to scrap expansion plans in the state.

The governor’s decision to back the bill in spite of the backlash hasn’t gone over too well with residents, either. A Monmouth University poll published in August found that 55 percent of North Carolina voters opposed House Bill 2, while seven out of 10 voters believe it had hurt North Carolina’s national reputation.

 

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

About That Clinton Email Server – Sec State Colin Powell Did the Same Thing

And advised her to do it.

Another Clinton “scandal” blows up in right wing faces.

Hillary Clinton’s emails with Colin Powell released

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell told his successor, Hillary Clinton, that he used his own personal computer to communicate with friends and foreign leaders and sent emails without going through the State Department server, according to emails released Wednesday by congressional Democrats.

Clinton has previously said she reached out to Powell when she began serving as the nation’s top diplomat to find out how he used personal devices. In a four-paragraph email response from Powell, he told Clinton he didn’t use a BlackBerry, but detailed how he got around having his communications with both employees and people outside the State Department becoming part of the agency’s official record.
What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient). So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels,” Powell wrote.
Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state has loomed over her presidential campaign and spurred intense criticism from Republicans. The email exchange between Clinton and Powell was released Wednesday by the State Department after Democrats on the House Oversight Committee pressed for it. They complained the full exchange was not part of earlier email document releases from the department that Republicans in Congress have asked for as part of their probe into Clinton’s email use….
Powell’s spokesperson recently told CNN that he wrote a memo about his own use of an AOL account to Clinton and said the account was for “unclassified messages and how it vastly improved communications within the State Department.”
Like…AOL is “secure”?

Colin Powell defends personal email use

Colin Powell is defending his use of a personal email account during his time as secretary of state, as Democrats stepped up complaints that the intense focus on Hillary Clinton’s email practices reflects a double standard.

Powell’s statement came after a top Democrat released an email Powell sent Clinton in early 2009 describing his use of personal communication devices in State’s secure executive suite despite warnings from security officials that such use could jeopardize classified information.

“Secretary Clinton has stated that she was not influenced by my email in making her decisions on email use. I was not trying to influence her but just to explain what I had done eight years earlier to begin the transformation of the State Department’s information system,” Powell said.

Powell adopted one of Clinton’s defenses Thursday, saying his actions didn’t jeopardize government record-keeping because official emails would have found their way into State’s official systems.

“With respect to records, if I sent an email from my public email account to an addressee at another public email account it would not have gone through State Department servers. It was a private conversation similar to a phone call. If I sent it to a state.gov address it should have been captured and retained by State servers,” Powell said. “I was not aware at the time of any requirement for private, unclassified exchanges to be treated as official records.”

In the email exchange released Wednesday by House Oversight Committee ranking Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings, Powell appeared proud that he had defied security officials by using hand-held devices in the agency’s secure spaces.

“They gave me all kinds of nonsense about how they gave out signals and could be read by spies, etc.,” Powell wrote, referring to personnel from State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security. “I had numerous meetings with them. We even opened one [device] up for them to try to explain to me why it was more dangerous than say, a remote control for one of the many tvs in the suite. Or something embedded in my shoe heel. They never satisfied me and NSA/CIA wouldn’t back off. So, we just went about our business and stopped asking.”

Republicans don’t mind sacrificing Powell because he told the truth about the Iraq War.

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

 
%d bloggers like this: