(10-14-2016 08:31 AM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 08:09 AM)MKDAWUSS Wrote:  So after Trump wins, what becomes the next course of action regarding all this information?

Too soon to churn too many mental cycles on it, but the following will happen:

1. The House will need to appoint a special investigator
2. The FEC will maybe open an investigation into CTR. If not, Trump will have to make the DOJ/FBI do it.
3. Maybe the IRS will investigate on a directive. Doubt it though.
4. The FBI and new DOJ head will conduct or reopen investigations(after Trump gets them confirmed by the Senate) (If he picks Trey Gowdy for DOJ, that one might go through very quickly)

Hopefully none of the good FBI agents that were on the original case will retire before the election ends, like they are threatening to do. I think they are waiting it out.

Trump, if he wants to be a complete and utter dick, can also request additional resources and go after MSM and investigate them as well, which is not likely to turn up anything, but you never know. He could also go after Soros and Saban as well, but that would be part of the FBI's main investigations.

I would wager this stuff taking 1-2 years to complete, depending upon how bad it is, and what they find.

Again, way too soon to really dig into this. We don't even know the full extent of how bad the leaks are.

The special prosecutor could RICO the entire thing any anyone involved with CGI or whoever donated money to it.

Once it goes RICO, they'd be done for. Anyone who ever colluded with the Clintons would be under the gauntlet. The MSM, DNC, Wall Street, government, etc.

The tools are there. They just need someone with the will to enact them.

It would be the first bloodless revolution.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10095

Quote:Transcript | 20151009 Meeting with BLM Activists

From:[email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] more Date: 2015-10-09 16:02 Subject: Transcript | 20151009 Meeting with BLM Activists

Please note that this was not a public event, so a tight hold on the attached transcript. Thank you all.

[quote]
20151009 Washington, D.C. Meeting with Black Lives Matter Activists

QUESTION: (Inaudible, begins off mike) -- so that we could claim a piece of our history. The council will be celebrating its 80th year this year. It was founded by Mary McLeod Bethune. And in case you don't know, Mary McLeod Bethune founded Bethune-Cookman College.

(Crosstalk.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible, off mike)

QUESTION: Did you (inaudible, laughter.)

(Crosstalk.) (Laughter.) (Voices inaudible.)

QUESTION: And when I think about pioneers in this room, many of you probably know that Dorothy Height (ph.) was the only woman, the only woman in the so-called leadership at the time and the movement (inaudible, off mike) in the '60s of the civil rights movement.

And she had to claw her way into that position. But she held her own. And she held her own. And to this day, she served as my mentor, and I served as the president of her foundation.

So I know that she is so proud and pleased to know that you're meeting here in this building. And I was just telling Secretary Clinton that this office has everything that was her office. Her desk and all of her little memorabilia that she used to like to collect. So welcome, and I wish you a very good meeting.

QUESTION: Thank you.

HILLARY CLINTON: Thank you.

(Crosstalk.) (Voices inaudible)

QUESTION: (Inaudible) thank you for your work.

HILLARY CLINTON: Thank you. Thank you.

QUESTION: Something that Secretary Herman (ph.) didn't say is that all those women she mentioned are members of Delta Sigma Theta.

(Crosstalk.) (Laughter.) (Voices inaudible.)

QUESTION: But welcome, everyone. Thank you for being here. As we've talked about, we want to have a substantive policy conversation. I think that we're a little bit behind time, so we'll go ahead and get started.

Go around the room, introduce ourselves, a good way to start.

(Break for introductions.)

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, thank you all. And what I would hope we can do today is really hear directly from you about the ideas you have for changing policies, changing approaches towards dealing with a lot of the problems you are committed to tackling.

I am very much interested in how we move from activism to action in the policy arena. And a lot of what I've read about Campaign Zero, about other recommendations is very much in line with what I think we need to be doing, and try to build coalitions outside of government, inside of government to actually address the very concerns that you have brought to the forefront.

I want to echo what Alexis Herman said. I think Dorothy Height, who I was privileged to know and served on the board of Children's Defense Fund for many years with would be thrilled to have you in this place that she devoted the last years of her life to create.

And I want to hear directly from you about what I in my campaign and then, if I'm so fortunate as to be elected, can continue to do to try to build the policy that needs to happen at the local level, state level, and the national level.

I've had the honor of speaking to several of the mothers of the children who have been killed in the last several years. And it's just an incredibly emotional and, for me, very touching experience to be talking mother to mother with -- starting with Trayvon Martin's mom.

And, you know, to hear the pain and the confusion, the absolute shock and grief that they feel about what happened to their kids (inaudible) mother who I also talked with. So (inaudible) young men.

And we just have to figure out how we're going to stop it and how we're going to move beyond it. So let me end there and throw it open in whatever order that you want to take it. And (inaudible) you were the person who tweeted me, so I'm going to turn to you and ask you to please organize this however you choose.

QUESTION: So three sort of framing things. One is that we are really appreciative of (inaudible) energy and time that she's put into supporting making this happen. I mean, you being available for this conversation, we're hopeful that this can be like a candid conversation.

Also, you know, we want to hear from you. We have a lot of questions about a range of issues, not just focused on police, but policing is, obviously, central to the movement and central to this space, but also a host of questions around race both at the national level and then at the local level, which is why we were intentional about making sure that this space included people from communities across the country.

So we will jump right in.

HILLARY CLINTON: Good.

QUESTION: And also, you know, at the end, so (inaudible) sort of just help manage it, but we'd love for you to be thinking throughout this conversation about your first 100 days and so how all the things that we talk about today can sort of fit into a framework of 100 days. So that will be one of the last questions that I ask you. So I want to preview it here for you so that you're prepared.

So I'll start with Sam and Britney to sort of jump off questions with us, and then we'll make it work.

QUESTION: Great. So in your April speech on race and criminal justice, you spoke about preventing federal funds being used to provide police weapons of war on our streets. And I was wondering if you could provide some more specifics around what that really means. Does it mean (inaudible) program? Does it mean preventing and requiring police departments to return some of the military equipment they've already received? It would be helpful to get some of your thoughts around what really that means.

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, Sam, I think President Obama has already taken action on some of this to try to prevent or stop the transfer of military-style weaponry and additional equipment to local police officers.

And I would certainly build on that and go as far as we can. I'm not sure that we can get people to return it. That, I'm not sure of the legality. But we can certainly stop it, and stop the kind of militarization that has taken place in our cities. And, in particular, in small towns.

I mean, it's one thing after 9/11 to say, okay, maybe we need to bolster what the N.Y.P.D. has, for example. But Ferguson? Really? I mean, this thing got way out of whack in terms of what was, I think, the original intention going all the way back to 1989, 1990.

So I would certainly put a stop to it. And I would certainly do everything I could to make sure that the whole idea of militarizing the local police was disincentivized. Try to figure out how we could change the federal pressure and programs to move away from that. And making sure that local police didn't, you know, move as they have to try to be like the guys on TV, you know, that sort of mentality.

So I would take that very seriously.

QUESTION: And does that include, you know, under the Obama Administration's actions that you mentioned, it doesn't include MRAVs, which many of us refer to as tanks, in that sort of prohibited class of weaponry. So would you include those in that class of weaponry?

HILLARY CLINTON: I'm going to find out why the Obama Administration didn't include them. I'm not aware of why they did not include them. I'd like to know if they had some legitimate reason for not including them. In the absence of a legitimate reason, I would include them.

QUESTION: So I would love to go back a little bit to the conversation we had when you were in St. Louis. You know, I asked about a great many things. But among them were how our communities are policed and the necessity of federal support and intervention to prevent the kinds of deaths and trauma that we're seeing in our communities.

So, specifically, I would love to know kind of about your evolution of thinking and the ways in which you are prepared to support issues around a standard use of force across the country, and anti-bias hiring and training for police officers, as we discussed.

And I know that you've also talked about actually putting more police officers in communities and schools. And I will say, as an educator, you know, I'm executive director of Teach for America in St. Louis in my full-time job. I'm worried about the idea of more police presence in schools and in our communities because our children are over policed as is.

And so I would love to know how you are thinking about policing and community safety in our communities and what level to which you're ready for the federal government to intervene under your administration.

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, you know, Britney, I think we talked before the Policing Commission report came out. And I thought that the work you and the others on the commission did was really important. That would be a very good starting place for what I hope that this administration in its last months, the Congress and then I could be building on.

And the questions you raised just now really go to the heart of how do we create an accepted policing atmosphere in communities that feel over policed or feel discriminated against by those who are, you know, allegedly sworn to protect them?

I want to do everything I can to try to empower people at the local level to take more control over those questions because I can -- you know, I know that there's been a lot of talk about what happened in the '90s. And I just want to say this because I know this is on people's minds.

You know, in the '90s, when a lot of the changes were done at the federal level, that was in response to a huge outcry by communities that were caught in the middle of a horrific crime wave.

And I was interviewed just the other day by Al Sharpton on his new TV show. And he started out by saying, he said, you know, "I want to just be clear here. I was one of those people telling your husband to do more on policing, get more police on the streets, get the criminals off the street."

So, you know, we have to figure out what is the right balance to keep people safe and yet not be oppressed and not be mistreated? And I don't know exactly what the right answers to that are. I'll just be honest with you. I don't know.

What I do know is that it's an urgent effort to try to figure out what that is because, you know, when, you know, when you look back on, you know, the exploding crime rates and the fact that I think 100,000, you know, African-American men have been killed in every decade in the last three decades by criminals, plus the police killings, that is just totally unconscionable.

And so how do we get back to an idea that has the right balance between, yeah, you know, the lady walking to the grocery store, the kids on the playground, you know, the guy driving his car. You know, I point out that on the very day that the shooting in Oregon happened, there was a five-month-old baby strapped into a car seat in the back of her mother's car in Cleveland who was shot.

So, you know, we've got to look at this whole violence situation broadly. And the police are an important, critical part of it. And, therefore, how do we get police forces and police officers to protect folks without killing them, without harassing them, without oppressing them?

And so all that you have recommended on training, anti-bias training, all of that has to be part of it. And I think we need to take the Policing Commission and other recommendations and have an ongoing -- I think your commission was disbanded. You made the report and then it was disbanded.

QUESTION: We sunset on December 31st.

HILLARY CLINTON: Yeah, so you need to be continue -- I mean, somebody needs to be continuing. And part of what we need to have, maybe we broaden it so we've got more people involved. Okay, what are the models that we're going to try to fund, that we're going to try to turn to communities across our country and say, "Here's what we think will work."?

We have a lot of experts. We have experts in criminal justice, in policing, in crime prevention. We have experts, and we have people, practitioners, and folks on the ground. So I want to get people together. This needs to be a national, ongoing effort. Not just one report, not just one piece of legislation.

And we need to raise up the challenge of keeping people safe both in the community from bad actors and from the police sworn to protect them. That's how I see it.

QUESTION: Are you open to supporting a national use-of-force standard to help --

(Crosstalk.)

HILLARY CLINTON: I think we should move toward that, yeah. I think that there should be some kind of national model, and the use-of-force standard would be part of that national model. And that would key off of, then, the training and what the community could expect and all the other pieces of it. But that has to be embedded in a larger strategic approach is how I see it.

QUESTION: Erica (inaudible, off mike)?

QUESTION: Yeah. One of the things that you said, that the police are a critical part of keeping communities safe. I think many of us at this table would disagree. And the reason why is because the piece that really keeps us safe is having the needs of the community be met. So through jobs, through education, through programs that support youth and support people who have been inflicted with trauma, who've experienced racial trauma by having their communities be over policed, by having poor education, by not having a job, by living in poverty. And also by being displaced.

That's what's happening in D.C. (inaudible) public housing community are now having their homes stripped because of gentrification. So it's complete communities that are just being pushed out, made homeless to make room for condos.

And in addressing the trauma that goes along with not feeling that your life is valued, that's what brings about crime and violence in our community because there is no level of understanding that my life has worth. If you look like me, your life doesn't have worth either, so I can take your life. I can victimize you. Do you get what I'm saying? So --

HILLARY CLINTON: I do.

QUESTION: With the police having that be a critical part of safety, that is something that I just do not believe because it's not anything that's been proven. When we have police that are just -- like what the mayor in D.C. is not putting on -- committed to putting 240-plus police officers in black communities, not in communities that are gentrified, but specifically in black communities that have been underserved. And that's the reason why we have a spike in crime.

There was a Richmond -- a program in Richmond, California, that actually identified those that were more likely to commit crimes or to be killed or to kill someone. And they gave them jobs. And violent crime dropped in double digits. And it's been doing the same all the way across the board.

So if you have people's basic needs met, then this is not -- we're not going to have a need to have so much force, to have military equipment and things in our communities if we just meet the basic needs of citizens of this country, we won't have that issue, and police won't have to be a critical part.

HILLARY CLINTON: I don't disagree at all about the need to improve conditions in every aspect of life for people who are marginalized, who are left out, who are pushed out, as you say. I don't disagree. That's what I've spent a lot of my life doing. I care deeply about that.

If you don't have good educational opportunities, good health opportunities, good housing opportunities, you know, it's very hard for a lot of people to feel that they're worth anything. And then the results, as you say, can often mean that people, if they don't feel like they're worth anything, don't think anybody else is worth anything.

But I respectfully disagree that there's not a role for good, smart, empathetic policing. I just disagree because I don't know -- I mean, we've been around on this earth for a really long time and there are lots of reasons why people act out or why people do things that harm somebody else.

But you need to limit the amount of policing that is necessary and focus more resources and more attention on all these other factors that you're pointing out. But I don't think that -- I don't see it as either/or. I think you have to improve policing, and you have to improve the relationships with communities, and at the same time, try to reverse a lot of the trends that we've seen in the last years that have really hollowed out communities and made people feel like they don't have any future. And that's something that I care a lot about and would be focused on trying to turn around.

QUESTION: I think that what she's saying, too, is it is not necessarily that there should be no policing. When we think about safety, right, when we think about places like Georgetown, it is safe not because it's flooded with police, but because it's resourced differently. Right?

So when we think about -- so what I think she heard you saying, what I heard you say was this idea that, like, the police are central to notions of safety. And we say they're actually not central in Georgetown, right? This idea that the police need to be ever present is specifically a race-based notion of policing.

And when we think about community policing, that's like this idea that the police are doing barbecues and high-fiving kids, and that is not white kids in affluent communities. Right? That is not how people talk about it. It is people in low-income and whatever sort of code word there is for "black."

So trying to figure out how do we acknowledge that there will always need to be a mechanism that, like, mitigates the harm to bodies and property, right? But that function will have to exist. Call it the police, call it something else. But how do we also acknowledge the sentiment that Erica expressed that, like, many people not only at this table, but definitely the people who are in the streets represent that, like, the police just being around actually doesn't make people feel safe. Right? That notion itself is something -- I think that that is what she's pushing on.

And you sort of -- what we heard is a statement that was like the police are keeping people safe. And we're saying that the police don't, like, in general, don't actually make people feel safe. Does that make sense to you?

HILLARY CLINTON: I understand what you're saying. And I understand sort of the source of the differentiation that you were making. And I guess what I'm saying is I understand that and you have to invest in communities so that they are more resource rich and they do have more opportunities.

But there is a transition period. And how do you get the transition to be funded, effective, rooted in what the community needs? And that will take time. That doesn't happen overnight. You know, we make progress and then we fall back, unfortunately.

You know, we now have a big spike in poverty once again. You know, we were on the path to really diminishing poverty. We now have 51 percent of the kids in public schools eligible for free or reduced lunch. That's the highest percentage we've ever had. And it is white kids, African-American kids, Latino kids, it's across the country.

You know, there are places that are hollowed out that are just falling apart in Appalachia, for example. And adding police is not going to make them turn away from meth, opioids, or heroin, you know? They might get their lives saved if somebody shows up with Narcan and provides the antidote.

So it's not only, you know, from my perspective, policing. I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is, though, there is a transition. How do we rebuild these communities? And the Richmond example is a great example. How do you replicate that? How do you get the funding to do more of that?

And that's why, you know, I'll go back to what I said about, you know, modeling this and trying to figure out, what are the models that will work that then we can go around and say we know whether it's a national standard for force or a program that puts people to work instead of, you know, feeling that they have no future.

And there's a lot of good research out there about how to lift up communities. We just have to have the political will and the focus on shifting resources to do that. So that's what I'm saying.

QUESTION: I think our ask -- and then I'll pass it to Delon (ph.) is like that the language -- your language reflects what you just said, right? So this understanding that, like, safety -- we'll always have to do with issues of safety and that police are a part of that.

HILLARY CLINTON: That's right.

QUESTION: What we heard was like the police are like central to that. And what we would say is that like --

HILLARY CLINTON: I got you.

QUESTION: Does that make sense?

HILLARY CLINTON: Yeah, I got you.

QUESTION: You mentioned the five-month-old shot in Cleveland as like kind of a caveat of violence as a whole. And that's something that I kind of want to key in on because one of the understandings is -- I sit on a police commission in Cleveland. And I had the police union president boast about arresting a 9- and 12-year-old who were (inaudible) sitting out on their porch. So he arrested those young people and took them to the juvenile detention center.

This is the thing that I'm afraid of because there's a focus and then there's this fear. And then you round up all these black people and put them in jail, right? And it feeds this cradle-to-prison pipeline when it should be services that are rendered, especially for trauma when we're talking about the trauma that is experienced from witnessing a crime or being in a space where the people who are sworn to protect you, you're not really sure if they're going to protect you or if they're going to kill you.

So having their very presence is almost debilitating, right? Because you've seen them snatch people out of your community before.

So this, like, fear of violence as a whole is problematic to have in the same kind of conversation as police violence. Right? These two things are very different because they have very different solutions on how you look at it.

Also, I'd like to say that the term "policing" when we start talking about policing, there's this mindset that things and people need to be policed. And that's not necessarily the case.

I think that there needs to be a paradigm shift that shows police as maybe mediators to issues. Right? They may be able to come in and mediate a problem and have a conversation versus coming in and policing something.

When you police something, you're trying to protect you or I fear for my life so I can shoot you. That type of thing. So that paradigm shift of how officers who are sworn to protect and serve interact with people in communities.

I think the last thing that I'd like to say is -- just piggy backing on what my sister said, there needs to be a new deal for black people. The New Deal that FDR did, largely and almost wholly, kept out minorities, period, and created a middle class in this country. And that was done by giving houses, giving jobs, subsidies on property tax so that there was this opportunity and this space and this time, decades even, where wealth was built. And then now we're talking about there should be like a bootstrap.

So I guess my question is: What does a new deal look like for the minorities in this country that allows us to close the racial wealth gap? Because that's what will solve our violence issues, and then on some level, it'll solve some of our policing issues because the police will be forced to look at you differently.

HILLARY CLINTON: I want to answer that, but I want to ask you, you made an interesting point, and especially from your service on the police commission. So when that police officer saw the 9- and 11-year-old with the TEC-9, what should that police officer have done in your sort of mediating idea?

QUESTION: Well, since they were arrested and they were loading it, let's have a conversation. Right? Because I'm not under any illusion that there was a real and present danger, right, for an adolescent to have a weapon. I get that. But you signed up for a job that requires real and present danger.

So if your first reaction is to arrest or subdue instead of have a conversation like it was your kid, because we're talking about a 12-year-old whose mind is not fully formed in order to make those kinds of decisions rationally. So if it was your child on a porch loading a TEC-9, what would you do with that? The first thing you do wouldn't be to arrest them and throw them in jail. The thing that you would do would be have a conversation, let's try to talk to a counselor, let me get this gun away from you. Where did you even get this gun? Let's have that conversation. So those conversations don't take place, we just remove the issue. And that's what the military does, that's why that militarization thing is so important that Sam brought up because the military eliminates issues, police officers are supposed to solve them.

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, you know, the reason I asked is because, you know, I've done a lot of work on this substance abuse issue. And I've been very encouraged that a lot of police departments are changing their attitudes toward low-level use of drugs and also moving more towards trying to get people into treatment, not many, but there are like four or five departments that I'm aware of. And that's kind of a model that I'd like to see spread. So that's why I was asking you about how you (view?) the mediation, and as you said, conversational role.

Look, I think that there's a lot of -- there are a lot of unmet needs that should be addressed in some kind of New-Deal-like approach. And I think it has to be both the government trying to help, business trying to help, and communities trying to help themselves. I think it's a tripartite approach.

You know, we did have a program that we started in the late '90s called a New Market Credit, and it was aimed at trying to help, you know, depressed communities invest in more jobs and development so that they could have, you know, more opportunities like you're talking about. Congress let it expire, you know, that's the kind of approach I'd like to see that we put back in and that we really target places that are, you know, poor, inter-generational poverty, high levels of joblessness, and all of the other characteristics that I think, you know, would merit a so-called new deal.

And I think that, again, this is an area where, you know, communities have to lead. It's not just top down, it's got to be bottom up. And it also -- I know there are some very simple observations about some of the communities that have been really hammered in the last, you know, 50 years or longer. How can they do more to empower themselves?

And, you know old-fashioned things like, you know, voters. You know, it's just astonishing that a community like Ferguson, which is a majority black community, didn't have any black people serving in any position. And at some point, people have to say, "I want to stand up and have somebody that I can connect to, that I can relate to." And use the tools that we already have, plus what additional investment we would bring to those communities so that they can have a chance to lift themselves up.

So I see it, as I said, as tripartite. You know, federal government, other governments like state government, but also the role that business can play by being incentivized to go into these communities, offer job training, offer more opportunities, and the community themselves that need to do kind of a needs assessment and figure out, you know, what they want so that it's not somebody imposing it.

And it's also a way to organize against gentrification and some of the other issues that people and communities are facing today.

QUESTION: Can I ask a clarification question? I'm sorry. Because I -- so -- because the point that was made was really important, and he very specifically said black people need a new deal, right? And we know -- there are two things we know historically: One is that marginalized people, especially African Americans have needed direct intervention from the federal government because we cannot rely on local and state governments to do things for us.

And the second is that when policy only addresses economics and does not also address race, black people always get left behind. And so what I heard you say was consistent conversation about economics that was absent of this racial piece that he just brought up.

And so I want to ask for a bit of clarity on how you're thinking about specifically addressing those issues in African-American communities.

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I think if you look at what's possible in the legislative process, I think you have to have formulas that will predominately impact black communities, but you're never going to get anything passed that is only for black communities.

QUESTION: Sure.

HILLARY CLINTON: Okay? So, you know, Jim Clyburn has a very interesting idea, the 10-20-30 plan which he has been laying out, which you probably know about, which, you know, by definition, would disproportionately impact black communities to use the formulas to send federal money there, but wouldn't be called "a new deal for black people."

QUESTION: Would you be in support of something like that?

HILLARY CLINTON: Yeah, I've told Jim Clyburn I'm in support of that. Yeah. So it's a -- maybe it's just a packaging or semantic issue, but I think you can shift resources based on formulas that will also apply to some other communities because then you get more support, but will be predominately aimed at trying to lift up, you know, black communities that have been left behind across the country.

QUESTION: Sally, Malia (inaudible).

QUESTION: I'm going to start by saying fear of police, that black people experience police officers differently than white people. When you ask a black male (inaudible) experience police officers or security guards even walking in a mall differently than a white male does.

So knowing that experience is different, we have to rethink police in general. And we've been talking so far about police being a central part to safety, and how we kind of disagree with that because our experiences with police are so much different.

One of the things I do want to talk about is you mentioned these alternative models. And that when we rethink police, we need to rethink the roles of the police. What can they do? And what things do they do now that they don't currently need to do? Specifically when it comes to the interactions with black people because we have a lot of incidences this year and last year where mothers have called the police because their sons have mental health issues and then the police officers came and shot the young man. Right?

So what kind of alternative methods can you do that we can call someone else other than police for these incidences, right? And what will you do as president to commit to funding these alternative models instead of funding more police officers?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, that's really what I mean. We need to fund alternative models. And that's why I mentioned the drug policy approach that some police officers are now taking. It's totally different. And, you know, I've meet with some of these guys who are now saying, look, used to be I'd show up, I'd arrest somebody, I'd throw them in jail. We're not doing that anymore. I show up, I try to get the person into some treatment program, I try to help them, I stay with them.

That's especially important for mental health, which is woefully underfunded, and when police and, frankly, you know, not just police, all kinds of people in the community have no experience, don't know how to deal with somebody who is having some kind of mental health episode.

So I would like to see, and I would like to fund, going back to my models idea, I would like to fund programs where, you know, a mom calls and says, "You know, my son is acting out, I can't control him." Which is usually what the call is. So if the police are there, they're only there as support for somebody from a mental health facility, somebody who can try to deal with someone who's off his meds or who's had some other terrible experience.

That's what I mean by a model because, you know, I don't think you can expect most people, let alone most police, to know how to deal with that. And I think that is a big part of the problem we've got. You know, like Dontray Hamilton (ph.) I met with his mom. You know, he had mental health problems. You know, but he was harmless. He didn't hurt anybody. And he got shot 14 times. And the police officer was wrong.

You know, you've got a guy there who, as far as I can tell is sitting on a bench somewhere, maybe he's sleeping on it. And he has a history of mental health problems. Get somebody to help him. Call whatever the local community health center or someplace is, if that's what he needs.

So you've got to change the training, you have to change the mindsets and the assumptions, but you also have to get more support. And the people who are providing that support are woefully underfunded. Like if you're an addict and you want to get help, you've got a one-in-ten chance of getting help in any kind of reasonable period of time. If you're a mental health person -- suffering from all kinds of challenges, that's about what you've got on your side, too, because you don't have the facility, you don't have the trained people, you don't have the resources.

So I think your point is absolutely right. When somebody calls for help, maybe they call 311 or 211 or something else and say, "I have, you know, my son is schizophrenic, he's not taking his medication, I need help because I'm afraid he's going to hurt either him or me. What can we do?" And I think that deserves a better response than just send the police to the door.

QUESTION: To go back to even that thing about the federal funding. When you think about how these resources will be allocated, we know that there's not an infinite amount of money out there. So how do we determine who gets this money and that these communities that are in dire need of this money are actually the ones that's getting it and not other communities? What type of formula will you use?

HILLARY CLINTON: Yeah.

QUESTION: Not even a formula, just make sure that these communities with these high crime rates are the ones that are specifically getting these funds.

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, we have the data now. And so we can construct a formula that really does direct the money to go to those communities that are most in need. And that's what I mean by the 10-20-30, which is more about fighting poverty and development, but you can also do it on, you know, crime statistics, on mental health statics, on all kinds -- joblessness statistics.

You can, I think, construct a model that would guarantee the money goes where it's most needed. And that's what I would be interested in. I mean, I think we spend a lot of money on stuff that doesn't make any difference to anybody. And so we need to be getting rid of stuff that is not helping anybody, not changing circumstances anywhere, and try to construct these formulas so that federal funds go where they're most needed.

But then we also -- we've got to have some kind of community support that when those funds are coming that way, people on their local level know what to do with them. I mean, we can go from the 30,000-foot level and say, "Here's the formula." So shoot the money down into these communities. But then communities have to be helped and, you know, empowered to know what to do with that money so that they've got a better shot.

You know, when I was with Britney at the forum that we had in St. Louis County, you know, Superintendent Jennings, this incredibly impressive superintendent of schools who took over a district in St. Louis County that was not even accredited. It was about, I guess as I recall, 99 percent African American, practically 99 percent free or reduced lunch. It was not even accredited. And she came in, and from everything I've been able to find out, she's really making a huge difference.

So one person can make a difference if they are backed up and empowered. That's what the Freedom Schools are really about -- training people to go out and be those change agents. And I think that's, you know, a large part of what, you know, you have done is to sort of light that fire under people. But then you've got to follow through. It's not enough. Okay, get the formula, get the money, you've got to stay with it. It doesn't happen easily or quickly, but I think we can make some significant changes if we did that.

QUESTION: And I don't have a question, I just wanted to name three real quick things. I don't like what you said about Ferguson and Body, without addressing disenfranchisement or the fact that Ferguson is segregated, and much like small towns. And all across America white people are making sure that black people do not vote. So that's -- you didn't address voter education or the resources to even get to go vote. Black people in Ferguson, most of them do not have cars. Public transportation is not dropping them off at a poll to go vote anywhere.

Secondly, I would like to say that your language around community leading to -- like there's this responsibility for black communities to do something to help themselves. One, it sounds like victim blaming. Two, it sounds like we're not doing enough to get our own selves like to be self-sufficient. And I don't feel like that's true. I feel like black people have been saying for a very long time in this country, what is wrong in our communities, what we actually need. But what white people hear and what people in power hear is getting more police, and that's just not the solution.

Thirdly, I wanted to say that your experience as a wealthy white woman in power will absolutely never be the same as mine or as (Nikos?) or any other woman in America who is black, or a person of color.

In Chicago, two days ago, a man called the police on me in a cab, and literally I'm dealing with interpersonal (problems?) with this cab driver, and then he calls the police, and I have to turn on my laptop so I can record the interaction between not only me and him but me and the police, because knowing who I am, and I know the Chicago police force knows who I am, I do not feel safe. I didn't feel safe with just the black man in the car, but I damn sure didn't feel safe with the police coming up. And Chicago police will absolutely kill people.

So I just wanted to name those three real quick things because I'm really like I'm trying to calm down. I don't like that. I think that you're really speaking for a place of privilege without acknowledging that you're speaking from a place of privilege, and that's just not okay.

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, let me respond. And I'm not sure we will ever agree. So you asked for a candid conversation. I'm going to give you a candid conversation.

I have done voter registration. I have done a lot of work to try to get people to polls, to get people to register, to get people to mobilize. And yes, maybe it's old fashioned, but there are ways to encourage people to stand up for themselves, despite the obstacles, and to own their own futures. And that has to be a part of any equation or we ain't ever going to get there is my view.

So when it comes to voting, and I did pick out Ferguson, yeah, segregated, disenfranchised, all of that. But now there's energy around it, and people need to get back to good old fashioned organizing and mobilizing and turning people out to vote.

It does make a difference. And in the absence --

QUESTION: (Inaudible/crosstalk).

HILLARY CLINTON: In the absence -- let me finish. I listened to you. In the absence of it, it's very hard to have any kind of lasting changes. If people don't believe that their vote matters or they can't get to the polls, then organize in some way to help them do that. And we've just gone down this road too many times over too many years.

And it is discouraging. I have no doubt about it, and I've seen it, and I have fought against it, because there are a lot of structural and implicit barriers to people actually getting out and voting.

The second thing, on the community, I just respectfully disagree again. You know, I'm not blaming anybody, I'm not pointing fingers at anybody, but I do think these transitions we're talking about, taking advantage of whatever programs, whatever additional money might come your way can only be successful if people themselves feel empowered and organized to attempt to take advantage of all of that. I think that's just a given, and I just again hold that position.

On the third I have no argument with you. Yeah, I am white. I've always been white. And I have no way of putting myself in your shoes or having the experiences that you do. I'm not pretending that I do.

And so when I hear what happened to you in the cab, that is very real to me and it's very disturbing to me, because it shouldn't happen. It shouldn't happen to anybody. So I'm not saying that you are someone I can't in any way empathize with, but I'm not saying that I can understand what it feels like being inside your head and living the life you've had to live, given the kind of problems that you have had to encounter.

So I'm not pretending any other way that that. I do want to be a partner in trying to help deal with a lot of these issues and to use whatever influence and whatever experience I have to try to support a lot of the goals that you all are advocating.

QUESTION: (Alea El?).

QUESTION: Yeah, I wanted to make a statement. I'm from Cleveland, Ohio, and we had the first black mayor of a major metropolitan city in the country. And I want to say that black faces in power doesn't really make a difference. And getting people -- like our organization, we've registered over 30,000 people to vote this year. And we can do as much as we can to get them out to vote, but if they don't have something to believe in or know that the person or the issues that they're voting for is going to directly affect them in their everyday lives, then -- I mean, and that is why voter turnout over the past year has been so slow specifically in the state of Ohio because people have lost hope in their elected officials and the issues that are on the ballot to represent them.

But I also wanted to ask you about your position around school-to-prison pipeline and zero tolerance policies in general.

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, the pipeline is something that in a way we've been talking about has to be disrupted at the very beginning. And that means you've got to have, from my perspective, a lot of the investments we've been discussing, starting with the support for families, early childhood education, universal pre-kindergarten, schools that are structured to support kids, not to basically dismiss them if they're not of a certain background or a certain level of ability, to try to look at the child as a whole to try to find ways that each child's going to be lifted up.

And there has to be a lot more mentoring and supporting, again within larger communities for kids. There have to be more jobs for kids. There have to be more of the kind of combined resources to provide services so that, yeah, there's a mental health service, there's a health service. There's all these other ways to aid and support families and kids as they move forward.

So that to me is one of the critical issues confronting us when we're talking about ending mass incarceration. We need to do more to help on the frontend, and then we need to do more to help people that are going to be released, under these new policies, to find jobs and to find a place in the community.

And we're not set up for that. We don't have the services for that. So we need to hurry up and get those services in place so that people have some kind of supportive environment.

So I think that is the best way to really think about it, trying to stop it on the frontend and then try to provide help for people who are either hopefully going to be diverted from going to prison and going to be let out of prison under these new changes.

QUESTION: (Inaudible).

QUESTION: September of last year, I was kidnapped by the police. I was abducted during a protest and was lost within the system for about 13 hours, which they wouldn't -- and during that time they took me on a rough ride, not unlike Freddie Gray's ride, where I was taken around the city, outside of their jurisdiction, Atlanta police department's jurisdiction, to scare me, because I was a protester and because I was an organizer.

And so when we talk about policing and talk about police as pillars of safety in community, I think that you need to recognize that for most folks who are black or brown, police are exactly the antithesis of that.

And I think that that's why I stand so strongly behind (Netta's?) statement about privilege and about how when you come into these conversations about policing and about how we attack policing as an issue and not as a solution, we have to come to the table in that conversation with our biases in check.

So I don't believe that as a white female protester I would have ever been kidnapped by the police. There is no record of that from the past year or year and some change for organizers who are white. None of them have been kidnapped by the police. Many of them have not even been arrested for infractions that black females have been.

And so when I went to vote in the local level a couple months after my arrest, one of the police officers who was involved in my abduction was handling security at one of the voting booths, and I did not vote, because I could not go into that space because of the violence that that man had inflicted (in my experiences?).

And that is a part of the lived trauma that a lot of black women and black folks and black communities deal with. And it is a part of the infrastructure of anti-black racism in this country. And so we can't have a conversation about eradicating police issues without talking about eradicating implicit bias and eradicating anti-blackness within the DNA code of policing.

And so I want to talk about specifically what your commitment to targeting anti-blackness is in this country. Because I hear a lot of rhetoric about rehabilitation and resources on sort of like a glossed over sort of like area and atmospheric way, but I want to be very specific.

We're having a very reactionary conversation right now about anti-blackness in the country that is proactively anti-black. And because of that, our solutions need to be proactive as well.

So I think we're talking about at this table not just the theoretical solutions that we can put into place but like in the way that anti-black racism in this country is specific, is definitive, is aggressive and absolutely, our solutions need to be as well. And I think that is the conversation that I'm not hearing, because we are talking about a country that has benefited for -- since its inception, violence against black folks. And I know -- sorry, reparations is like the word that you don't say in political conversations. But in a sense we need to be talking about how we can rehabilitate the black community and the relationship that we have with political power and infrastructure, political infrastructure in America.

And so I want to go back to when we were talking about redirecting resources from policing black youths to rehabilitating black youths and adding resources into a solution-based conversation with them. How do we make sure that that conversation doesn't get lost in all of the business that you have to handle in your first 100 days?

Because we're at a point where black youths are dying at a rate of at least 17 more times likely than that of their white counterpart. And that is a number that means that at any point my two young brothers could be killed and taken away from me. And I need to know that the president that I put in office is proactively dedicated to that solution, and not using acceptable water-downed rhetoric to direct a problem that is not watered down in any way, in my experiences.

HILLARY CLINTON: I think that's totally fair. And look, as I said to (Jenetta?), I cannot put myself in either of your positions. I mean, it's just outrageous, disgusting what happened to you and what happened to you, and what has happened I'm sure to everybody around this table.

All I can tell you is that I have worked on, spoken out against, and will continue to do everything I know to do -- and I would welcome your advice about how best to do it -- against the sort of systemic racism that still stalks our country. It is the original sin of our founders.

And how we deal with it, and I know -- I mean, look, I worked with President Obama for four years. I know how painful all of this is to him. And how you deal with it, how you speak about it, how you try to change attitudes, shame people, force folks to take a hard look at themselves, create an unacceptable atmosphere for a lot of the attitudes, the rhetoric, all of that, which is all too common still, I'll do whatever I can because it is at the root of so many of the serious unanswered, unfulfilled questions and promise that we have.

So what works and how best to make it work I think is something we're struggling with. Because I don't want to be just -- I mean, obviously I care a lot about channeling resources and trying to change policing and all of that stuff, but at the bottom of it, if you can look at your fellow human being and treat someone as though they are less than you, that they are the other, that they have no right to be in that cab, they have no right to be protesting, that's a serious, systemic flaw. And you can't just fix it by trying to get programs, I'm well aware of that. You know, we have to go much deeper than that.

And, you know, there's a lot of trends that are connected to this right now. This huge increase in gun violence and this attitude of using violence, using force, is just so deeply disturbing. And people, black people are the principal victims of whatever it is that's motivating that mindset.

You know, the rhetoric you hear from the Republican candidates, you know, dehumanizing people, attacking people, insulting people, I mean, what is wrong? I mean, what is that about?

Think about it. That kind of rhetoric and that kind of attitude gives aid and comfort to people who have bias, who are scared and insecure and take it out on somebody, whether they're a police officer or a cab driver.

So yeah, I care deeply about doing a better job trying to think of how we connect in an authentic way about this whole challenge of racism. And I don't know exactly the right way to do it. So I'm asking for help.

(Crosstalk.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible/crosstalk) couple things from (Pico?), and then (inaudible) your name.

QUESTION: (Alia?).

QUESTION: (Alia?).

QUESTION: Okay. I'll go. I want to say that I live by a poem from Lucille Clifton called Celebrate, and the last line is, "Won't you celebrate with me that every day something has tried to kill me and has failed?"

Earlier, I talked about representing the 20 trans women of color who have been murdered this year. And in thinking about police violence, I think a lot of times we focus on how it shows up with men, because you met with a lot of the black male family members who have been murdered by police, but only one woman, and it was (Sandra Bland?).

And I can tell you that specifically or particularly black trans women are being criminalized by the police at a disproportionate rate.

I know you just spoke at the HRC National Dinner, and I don't know what they told you about the culture or climate for LGBT folks in this country (since love one?) this past summer.

But this is LGBT history month, and so I have to like speak up and list the names of Marsha P. Johnson (ph), and (Ms. Major?), who are black trans women, who started the movement back in 1969 at Stonewall. And they were rebelling against police, because when they would come in and raid the bar they would separate people based on gender and tell them, if you don't have on three articles of clothing that match your ID, then you're going to jail for falsification or impersonation of the opposite gender.

And I think those legacies of policing, much in the same way that they've been passed down since slavery and like bounty hunting and like fugitive catchers, slave catchers, still exist today when we're dealing with the police.

I think about (Shelly Hilliard?) from Detroit who was coerced into being an informant by the Detroit police department. And when they apprehended the person they wanted to arrest, they told him he was a well-known drug dealer, and they told him that Shelly was the one who told -- ratted him out basically. And the next day she went missing and we're still -- I think a few months ago they were still finding body parts of hers that had been scattered around Detroit, right?

I also think about (Keisha Jenkins?), who was only 22 years old in Philadelphia, who was murdered earlier this week. And she was beat by six men, and then shot twice in the back.

And so I'm wondering like about your commitment to going there for our communities' most vulnerable and at-risk populations. I think the conversation around poverty and policing goes hand-in-hand because I think that that's where a lot of the interaction first happens with folks when they come into the police.

I think about Eric Garner selling loose cigarettes, but I also think about Shelly from Detroit because she was a sex worker.

And so I'm just wondering, what do you think your role would be as president to kind of work on the decriminalization of like black LGBT folks, and specifically around like decriminalization of sex work, decriminalization of marijuana, those things that have historically been used to oppress us.

HILLARY CLINTON: Yeah. You know, first of all, just as I've said before, I just can't even imagine the kind of pressure and the constant anxiety and insecurity that you and so many others live with.

From my perspective we do need to look hard at decriminalizing behavior that is not harmful, that is not leading to violence, and try to figure out how best to do that.

Sitting here today, I can't tell you. I don't know. I haven't --

QUESTION: But do you support it?

HILLARY CLINTON: I support the idea of it. I'm not sure exactly how you would implement it and how -- you know, because remember, most of the laws you're talking about are state and local laws. I mean, the federal government can encourage, can make suggestions, can provide incentives, but most criminal law, most policing, all of the problems that we've been discussing are really controlled at the local and the state level. So you have to have a buy-in by others, not just by the federal government.

I think there is more conversation going on about this now, at least that I am aware of, of people talking about what can be done to decriminalize low-level offenses to try to avoid prison, to try to provide different kinds of support and diversionary measures to people who might be in need. I mean there is a difference between an adult sex worker and a child trafficked into being a sex worker, so you cannot just make a blanket statement, you have to figure out what the different work situations are.

QUESTION: Human trafficking is what would be illegal because rape and kidnapping are illegal when the police aren’t doing it. I think I heard you say when, with the Boston Black Lives Matter quote that you cannot change hearts and minds but I do believe that we can change hearts and minds.

I consider you one of the queens of America, and as the leader of the DNC and certainly someone who millions of people look up to, having you go there, be a little more radical, to lead and push folks, I think would do wonders. So you do not think that that would work? Or you do not want to do that because of your position?

HILLARY CLINTON: No, I have been very supportive of transgender rights and I will continue to be and I will continue to speak out against violence against transgender Americans and I think there is a greater awareness, now, of the issue so I think there is more openness for people to actually understand. But the violence issue is something you have to come down very hard on. And it is not something that you change hearts and minds on. You say no, it is wrong. People are going to be arrested and convicted for stalking; you were talking about the recent incident —

QUESTION: So, we do not want to be arresting and convicting more people. We do not want to make the prisoner --

HILLARY CLINTON: Even the people that kill —

QUESTION: I went to the Huffington Post yesterday and they asked me what would I say to the people that killed Keisha Jenkins, and I would say that I would tell them I loved them. We do not want to make the prison industrial complex bigger. We actually want to —

HILLARY CLINTON: What would you do with them assuming they are apprehended? What would you do with them?

QUESTION: I think that —

HILLARY CLINTON: These men, I am assuming they are men, targeted, stalked and brutally murdered a human being. What would you do with them?

QUESTION: I think that many of the suggestions today would certainly help. When you think about giving people access to the things that they need.

HILLARY CLINTON: There are some bad people in the world. I am sorry; there are some bad people in the world. Bad folks, I mean there are bad rich people, they have every advantage in the world and they are bad people. So yes, I want to help everybody I can have a different future. And I am particularly focused on people who have not had much of a chance. They deserve a second, third, and fourth chance. But there are bad people, and bad people should not be allowed to hurt innocent people who are just going about their lives. So we have to make those distinctions. That is all I am saying.

QUESTION: I think as evidence of this conversation, you are obviously somebody who is willing to work around criminal justice and pushing that forward, but I also know that you are getting [inaudible] and we acknowledge that that is a systemic problem and there is going to be policy that needs to be changed, I also know that you are getting campaign money from CCA and GEO, so I am wondering what is the justification for that, and if you are willing to publicly say something about that

HILLARY CLINTON: I have, I have said that we are going to end private prisons. Period. End them. I do not believe in them. I think that they have become a very insidious, pernicious player in the whole criminal justice mess that we are facing right now. And the idea that they get paid on keeping debts [inaudible] is absolutely wrong. So I am on the public record, I am going to end them. The sooner the better as far as I am concerned.

QUESTION: And you get money from the lobbyists, from CCA and actually getting money from [inaudible]

HILLARY CLINTON: I do not know who people represent. If they did, I do not know anything about that other than to say, I am going to get rid of private prisons.

QUESTION: So if you did know, would you be willing to find out if that was part of your —

HILLARY CLINTON: I am on record. I have said, we are going to end private prisons. We are going to end them as quickly as I can. Again, I have the problem that states are running most of the private prisons so I have to figure out how I get federal dollars away from private prisons, that is my goal.

To starve them of any federal money and to cause them to have to shut down. Look, a lot of the public prisons are not very good either. But there is something deeply offensive about private prisons to me so yes, we are going to shut the private prisons down.

QUESTION: Let me recap some of the things that were heard today. With the understanding that the black organizing [inaudible] has not come out yet, so we are hoping that this conversation can inform the platform in both how you talk about issues and I think one of the things that I heard consistently from people when talking to you was really about how you frame and talk about things which is to push around, and I think this is [inaudible] there is this thing about the bully pulpit that is like, what you talk about, people talk about.

And the way you talk about it, people talk about it, so I think that Biko is split on should we arrest anybody, but what Biko was surfacing was this tension that what happens in prisons is we throw people away.

So as much as we know there are bad people, it’s a question of like, are you bad forever? If you spend fifty years in jail, the way reentry recidivism works is well you come out and you’re sort of still in jail, you’re just not physically there right now. So there is this push around, let’s not put people into a system that literally throw people away. So how are we sensitive to that?

The federal thing, and I think that this is sort of, a lot of what you are saying is [inaudible] that, I don’t know your intents, I’m just going to say what it feels like, it feels like this, in some ways, an abdication of the responsibility of the President, making everything sound local, and that is how people experienced it. So if that is your intent, then we got it. If that’s not your intent, then trying to figure out how you talk about the role of the federal government that does not let the federal government off the hook.

And make everybody like all the states and local places have to do it. Because I think that is a theme that people felt often. Then paraphrasing, the communities need to work really hard, we have two examples, we know that yes people are disenfranchised and we need to be invested in their future, we agree.

Right, everyone agrees about that. But there is something about acknowledging that people didn’t choose to get there. Like people don’t wake up and think I want to be poor and live in the projects.

And I think about I was a teacher, and I think about my parents who worked two jobs, so they didn’t come to parent-teacher conference not because they didn’t care about their kid, but they care more about their kid eating than sitting with me for thirty minutes. So I had to figure out structurally how to accommodate them. And the language you used seemed to suggest that that parent should have worked harder.

That would be the logical extent on the language you used, and I want to believe you don’t mean that, again but there was something about when you talked about places like Ferguson, that people would say people worked really hard and it wasn’t until people got in the street that anybody listened, and that people had been the unheard [inaudible] and with voting the same thing, that people didn’t disenfranchise themselves, so people should vote. Like Malia said, people don’t vote because of other reasons.

They feel like things never work for them, and we are sitting around this table and meeting with you because we feel like there’s something about the political process that actually matters for people, to be candid, though it’s important for us and the people we speak to that they also feel like somebody in your position will actually do something different or they’re not going to vote, right?

You and none of the other Democrats will have a future if black people just stay home, right, so figuring out how we try to figure out how we reinvest people in t

^
^ They'd Kennedy him first.

I wondered why BLM stopped protesting at Hillary events.

(10-14-2016 09:11 AM)C-Note Wrote:  I wondered why BLM stopped protesting at Hillary events.

Because she promised them Federal Funding...

That's all the BLM thing is really about, Gib Money!

They just want to create BLM non-profits so they can employ themselves and their like-minded BLM-cohorts in cities around the country, and be the federal funding gateway to the black community. They ultimately want power and monetary control over all the major inner cities, and they will continue to threaten to unleash a horde or BLM terrorists if they don't get DAT MONEY!

Hillary is happily funding this terrorist organization and enabling them to extort money from the government with their threats of more race riots and Civil War.

Here we go

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14...ma-cabinet

Perhaps the most startling discovery of the WikiLeaks dumps so far didn't come from the most recent emails surrounding the various Hillary scandals, though there are many great ones, but from 2008 when John Podesta served as co-chair of President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team. The email came from Michael Froman, a former Citibank executive, who single-handedly built the entire cabinet of what was supposed to be the "main street" President.

The email in question was even sent from Froman's Citibank email address (rookie!) and includes "A list of African American, Latino and Asian American candidates, broken down by Cabinet/Deputy and Under/Assistant/Deputy Assistant level, plus a list of Native American, Arab/Muslim American and Disabled American candidates."

Apparently Obama wasn't as worried about placing women in senior-level positions but Froman decided to offer up some suggestions anyway.

"While you did not ask for this, I prepared and attached a similar document on women."

Froman even went ahead and "scoped out" which people should be appointed to which cabinet positions.

"At the risk of being presumptuous, I also scoped out how the Cabinet-level appointments might be put together, probability-weighting the likelihood of appointing a diverse candidate for each position (given one view of the short list) and coming up with a straw man distribution."

As New Republic points out, the Froman appointments ended up being almost entirely right.

The cabinet list ended up being almost entirely on the money. It correctly identified Eric Holder for the Justice Department, Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security, Robert Gates for Defense, Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff, Peter Orszag for the Office of Management and Budget, Arne Duncan for Education, Eric Shinseki for Veterans Affairs, Kathleen Sebelius for Health and Human Services, Melody Barnes for the Domestic Policy Council, and more. For the Treasury, three possibilities were on the list: Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Timothy Geithner.

This was October 6. The election was November 4. And yet Froman, an executive at Citigroup, which would ultimately become the recipient of the largest bailout from the federal government during the financial crisis, had mapped out virtually the entire Obama cabinet, a month before votes were counted. And according to the Froman/Podesta emails, lists were floating around even before that.

Many already suspected that Froman, a longtime Obama consigliere, did the key economic policy hiring while part of the transition team. We didn’t know he had so much influence that he could lock in key staff that early, without fanfare, while everyone was busy trying to get Obama elected. The WikiLeaks emails show even earlier planning; by September the transition was getting pre-clearance to assist nominees with financial disclosure forms.

So if this history is any guide then the real power within a future Clinton administration is being formed right now. In fact, another email from January 2015 reveals that Elizabeth Warren was already "intently focused on personnel issues" almost two full years ago as evidenced by the following recap of a conversation that the Hillary campaign had with her Chief of Staff, Dan Geldon.

He was intently focused on personnel issues, laid out a detailed case against the Bob Rubin school of Democratic policy makers, was very critical of the Obama administration's choices, and explained at length the opposition to Antonio Weiss. We then carefully went through a list of people they do like, which EW sent over to HRC earlier.

We spent less time on specific policies, because he seemed less interested in that.

He spoke repeatedly about the need to have in place people with ambition and urgency who recognize how much the middle class is hurting and are willing to challenge the financial industry.

Is there actually anything bad in that BLM transcript? The first third of it or so that I read seemed like a rather legit discussion about concerns for Black communities.

(10-14-2016 10:50 AM)Blaster Wrote:  Is there actually anything bad in that BLM transcript? The first third of it or so that I read seemed like a rather legit discussion about concerns for Black communities.

BLM (incl "Mothers of the Movement") is nothing more than a bunch of opportunistic terrorist thugs. That fact that she met with them at all instead of denounced them means she either tacitly supports them or is willing to align herself with them to push her agenda.

They don't need a voice in the govt.

They don't need a seat at the table.

They don't need any govt legitimacy.

GUILTY.

A blast from the past!!! How many of you guys remember this video?

(10-14-2016 11:21 AM)Adonis Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 10:50 AM)Blaster Wrote:  Is there actually anything bad in that BLM transcript? The first third of it or so that I read seemed like a rather legit discussion about concerns for Black communities.

BLM (incl "Mothers of the Movement") is nothing more than a bunch of opportunistic terrorist thugs. That fact that she met with them at all instead of denounced them means she either tacitly supports them or is willing to align herself with them to push her agenda.

They don't need a voice in the govt.

They don't need a seat at the table.

They don't need any govt legitimacy.

GUILTY.

Granted. My question still stands, though. If no one has the time to read it, I'll do it myself. Just didn't want to waste my time if someone else had done it already.

Juicy

^^^
Although most of the MSM is trying to ignore the email controversy, at least Fox is covering it and it is the most-watched news network in the US.

(10-14-2016 12:07 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  Juicy

Juicier :

@0HOUR1__ · 54m
"[email protected]
202-503-5409
#Anonymous
LULZ! ROLLING"

(10-14-2016 07:21 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  The elites want the term DAESH to be used because "Islamic State" kind of puts a bummer on their "Islamic migrant invasion".

Trouble is, DAESH is harder to pronounce without sounding like an idiot, so the mainstream anchors stick with ISIS.

It is a term that Arabs call Hillary's mercenaries out of disrespect.

Quote:Defiance and disrespect

The term "Daesh" is also considered insulting, and the IS group itself doesn’t like the name one bit.

“Daesh” sounds like the Arabic term “Daes”, meaning “one who crushes something underfoot”, as well as “Dahes”, which means “one who sows discord”.

"Dahes" is also a reference to the Dahes wal Ghabra period of chaos and warfare between Arab tribes, an era that is famous in the Arab world as one of the precursors of the Muslim age.

“Daesh”, therefore, has considerably negative undertones, and it is little wonder that the French government has decided to deploy the term as a linguistic weapon.

http://www.france24.com/en/20140917-fran...amic-state

Saw this on Paul Joseph Watson's twitter. I have to say that I admire the lunatic Jill Stein here. This could persuade fence-sitting Hillary voters to just stay home.

Quote:We're bombing seven countries.

It's actually Hillary's policies [on war and nuclear weapons] which are much scarier than Donald Trump, who does not want to go to war with Russia.

(10-14-2016 08:58 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  ^
^ They'd Kennedy him first.

I'm about worried about Pence. If Trump became president, Pence would be his "LBJ".

Overall, these leaks (especially the last 2 days) have been weak. Nothing much that we can use to put her down with. Let's be honest the FEC won't and cannot halt her campaign for hundreds of FEC violations. Oh well. Maybe Monday will have something decent in it. At this rate, it looks like Podesta emails will not finish dumping before the election. They still say they have the 33K emails she deleted.

Now that I think about it. Does Wikileaks have Podesta emails and maybe Guccifer has the 33k stuff? The Anon that gave us the tip about what's coming read more like Guccifer than Wikileaks. If Assange had those 33k emails, he would not have enough time to dump any of them before the election. Unless that is what he meant by dumping things all November as well. What good does that do? Do they think Obama and Hillary, if she wins, would let him start and finish dumping TOP SECRET stuff unmolested?

If so, that's really stupid. If that is how they are thinking, they did not think this all the way through very well.

One thing these guys need to understand is that the NSA knows exactly where all Wikileaks people live (except maybe Guccifer2.0, he might be physically in EE or Russia). Any NATO member country would conduct a raid on request from Obama to nab them. They probably have one staged already and is waiting for a green light. Julian included. They stopped being journalists the moment they started playing games politically and openly running a political agenda. In political science these are called "Non-State Actors"(NSA's). Free press or journalists are not actors.

I am starting to get the feel that, they may not finish dumping all of this and make it out alive in the process or maintain their freedom. Obviously an enraged Hillary as president would see to his death. Even impeachment proceedings cannot keep her from sending CIA or whatever at him. Her husband bombed Afghanistan with cruise missiles against Osama bin Laden, while being impeached. Republicans could not stop him from doing his daily duties as president just because of a perjury investigation on him.

These guys are playing checkers with landmines and have no clue. This is where that fine line between high IQ and foolishness begins. Maybe the factor at which intelligent criminals get caught because they cannot possibly factor in every possible gotcha.

Even Edward Snowden had enough good sense to go to China and Russia before running his mouth. Even though his judgement post-leaking, is questionable, he at least understood what it would take for him to be physically safe. Don't forget they actually tried to chase him down.

Obligatory quotes for this malaise:
"It is not wisdom but authority that makes a law" - Thomas Hobbes
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” -George W. Bush

(10-14-2016 12:13 PM)C-Note Wrote:  ^^^
Although most of the MSM is trying to ignore the email controversy, at least Fox is covering it and it is the most-watched news network in the US.

Funny how life changes. I remember when Fox News hit the scene and how over a few years it became the most biased source of news the world has ever seen. It was repulsive to me when I was a young semi-liberal guy. Too many others felt the same. CNN quickly filled in that void for many liberals to moderate people. Even Conservative people watched CNN just so they could avoid too much echo chamber in their news consumption.

Now the roles have basically reversed. Fox has a BIAS Check on every other outlet, everyday, and is pretty fair. Not only do they have the same conservative talking heads, but they have "you go gurrl" liberal talking heads as well.

I hope some psychologist or historian will write a good book on how this happened. It's very interesting.

(10-14-2016 12:07 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  Juicy

Before the next debate, it would be very helpful if they leak out the emails surrounding that one. That would be something we could use as well as Trump. Gowdy and Chaffetz could use those as well.

(10-14-2016 11:56 AM)Blaster Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 11:21 AM)Adonis Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 10:50 AM)Blaster Wrote:  Is there actually anything bad in that BLM transcript? The first third of it or so that I read seemed like a rather legit discussion about concerns for Black communities.

BLM (incl "Mothers of the Movement") is nothing more than a bunch of opportunistic terrorist thugs. That fact that she met with them at all instead of denounced them means she either tacitly supports them or is willing to align herself with them to push her agenda.

They don't need a voice in the govt.

They don't need a seat at the table.

They don't need any govt legitimacy.

GUILTY.

Granted. My question still stands, though. If no one has the time to read it, I'll do it myself. Just didn't want to waste my time if someone else had done it already.

Fair point, I came off a little dismissive there so apologize for that. I would recommend reading in its entirety, not only for Hillary's answers but for the questions that these people are asking which is the real window into their psyche. What is sounds like is they are asking to be paid off ("new deal for blacks only") and left to their own devices (disagreeing with any policing). The jist of this is that Hillary wants BLM/Campaign Zero/MoM to have a hand in the shaping of policies at the federal level. The trouble is that Hillary wants to pander to both blacks and the police-judicial complex.

I'm going to be surprised if the 33k emails are recovered.

Chaffetz has shown himself to be a cuck traitor. Not at all surprising that Hillary doesn't get prosecuted!

Not only is the FBI and DOJ in her bag, but also the House Oversight Committee.

Chaffetz is all talk no action.

Is it really a surprise now that Gowdy's Benghazi hearings went nowhere?

In the Benghazi hearings, you had 7 R's, 5 D's - of the R's, Martha Roby has called for Mr.Trump to withdraw his candidacy. Additionally, she is the Chair of the "House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations" which was in charge of the Select Committee's investigations on military activities on the night of the attacks.

All you need is one R to make sure the investigation goes nowhere.

(10-14-2016 01:09 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 12:07 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  Juicy

Before the next debate, it would be very helpful if they leak out the emails surrounding that one. That would be something we could use as well as Trump. Gowdy and Chaffetz could use those as well.

As per Chaffetz, I knew he was a traitor and not really serious about anything (I was suspicious of this at the time) when I saw his interview with Bill O'Reilly regarding the Benghazi lies and investigations. At that time, O'Reilly said, "You can put Leon Panetta on the stand" ... and Chaffetz hemmed and hawed and tried to dodge the fact that that was the right thing to do, if you are serious about doing anything, but wouldn't even address it. This was February 2014, I remember it clear as day. I was pissed because it hammered home that these guys aren't serious about anything. They just put on an act and everyone protects each other. Unreal how disappointing and sad it is to realize the whole thing is a joke, the R and D crap.

(10-14-2016 12:41 PM)ElFlaco Wrote:  Saw this on Paul Joseph Watson's twitter. I have to say that I admire the lunatic Jill Stein here. This could persuade fence-sitting Hillary voters to just stay home.

Jesus Christ does Jill Stein get injected with renewable botox? I mean the gross contrast of her smooth face to her wrinkled chicken neck is really unnerving.

Question is of course. . . if she died her hair blonde and wore a turtle neck . . . would let give blowjob WLGBJ?

(10-14-2016 01:24 PM)Blaster Wrote:  I'm going to be surprised if the 33k emails are recovered.

We know it is out there. Comey hinted at that himself. They found evidence of foreign actors had compromised it before they got ahold of it. Not one, but more than one country.

He also gave a hint that he was going to the closed door session to tell the committee which countries they think copied emails off that server.

So Russians, definitely the Chinese, and probably some European countries. That's alot of leakage. Someone from inside one of these would not mind leaking it to someone. From there it is just a matter of time.

When you run a server like that, with Mall Cop level IT support, even a greenhorn penetration tester can C&C a mailserver like that with something like metasploit payloads. From there, you just copy the databases, compress, send back, delete the compress. They could have also set up relays to copy-send any new mail in or out, for a time period. That isn't very sneaky but still..

Custom exploits are not even necessary, but Russia and China keep many zero day exploits to themselves. That's overkill. Thing is, all you need to know is the domain. That's it. just regular ol motive to go look for it.

The Yahoo hacks also show that, once they get wind of a private domain like Clinton's, as one of the CC'd people in an email string, it's over. Now they know where to get all the rest. If you look through these dumps, there are gmail, AOL, and all other forms of public trash mail accounts being used to conduct business.

I won't name the company'(s), but there are many Fortune 500 companies, I have consulted for, that do not even allow employees to access public webmail on a company computer. Some make VPN tunneling for email mandatory, and too many put a HubTransport/Edge server inside a DMZ with firewalls on both sides. It's obvious they ran multi-role (All Exchange roles in one server CAS/HUB/Mailbox). They probably did not set up a DMZ either. They couldn't have hardened the box, because you cannot do much of that with a multi-role server.

That's child's play. The only time I set something up like that for a customer is if they have 5-100 employees and they are a service company that runs trucks or something. They have zero security requirements and HR files are in a locked door next to the owner's mother's office.

Chelsea was making 700-ishK a year. Any IT architect could make a multi-location(site) build with redundancy, inside nuclear bomb proof bunker datacenters, with tiered networking for around half of her salary. I know because I have done it myself. You still don't need all of that to make it secure! Without layered security always having the latest patches installed is not enough. Not even close.

They were cheap and conniving, thinking no one would know about the silly server. They train people in the top 3 oil and gas companies that actually watch out for people that grab papers off printers, because the big three hire spies to try and get hired in the other company, and pull little stunts like that. Even Mars, Nestle, and Hershey had wars in the past and dug in each other's trashcans alot.

Corporate espionage and cyber security is DEEP! Grandma Clinton is utterly unqualified to run this country just on the premise that she cannot even grasp the basics of things like this. It drives me nuts that she gets a pussy pass on this!