Hillary won more votes for President

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

Big bad wolf on wall street!

One bank executive assured his clients, “We continue to believe Clinton would be one of the better candidates for financial firms.” He was quoted in a CNN Money article, “Wall Street Isn’t Worried about Hillary Clinton’s Plan,” which stated,

Hillary Clinton unveiled her big plan to curb the worst of Wall Street’s excesses….The reaction from the banking community was a shrug, if not relief.

That makes me want to vote for her even more. I'm not sure how you think people buy houses, cars, TV's and Pearl Jam tickets. She would absolutely be a better candidate than Trump or Sanders for the financial community.

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

Big bad wolf on wall street!

One bank executive assured his clients, “We continue to believe Clinton would be one of the better candidates for financial firms.” He was quoted in a CNN Money article, “Wall Street Isn’t Worried about Hillary Clinton’s Plan,” which stated,

Hillary Clinton unveiled her big plan to curb the worst of Wall Street’s excesses….The reaction from the banking community was a shrug, if not relief.

That makes me want to vote for her even more. I'm not sure how you think people buy houses, cars, TV's and Pearl Jam tickets. She would absolutely be a better candidate than Trump or Sanders for the financial community.

That's definitely true.
My #1 concern obviously isn't for the financial community, of course, but you're right. And if anyone wants to focus on trying to reduce the wage gap by starting with Wall Street's excesses, then that's fine with me. Though I would want the person to take it a thousand steps further than that, but something is better than nothing.

JC29856

What we will do when she breaks up the banks?

You seem like a knowledgeable business person, would you mind answering a question?

If banks did not loan teenagers tens of thousands of dollars for secondary education what do you think will happen? In general.

Cliffy6745

Too big to fail

JC29856

Anybody who knows me, who thinks that they can influence me, name anything they’ve influenced me on. Just name one thing. (See Sen Warren) I’m out here every day saying I’m going to shut them down, I’m going after them. I’m going to jail them if they should be jailed. I’m going to break them up.

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

Anybody who knows me, who thinks that they can influence me, name anything they’ve influenced me on. Just name one thing. (See Sen Warren) I’m out here every day saying I’m going to shut them down, I’m going after them. I’m going to jail them if they should be jailed. I’m going to break them up.

So the question is... what does 'break them up' mean? Does that mean she is going to re-institute Glass-Steagall? That would divest commercial from insurance from investment banking. If that's breaking them up, I'm okay with that. I've never been a proponent of that wall being torn down.

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

What we will do when she breaks up the banks?

You seem like a knowledgeable business person, would you mind answering a question?

If banks did not loan teenagers tens of thousands of dollars for secondary education what do you think will happen? In general.

If this happened in the way you are interpreting it, college loans for teenagers would be the absolute last concern I would have. That's not even in the top 100. Either way, dissolution of banking ain't happening.
Quick edit... the rallying cry... BREAK UP THE BREAKS is no different than BUILD A WALL in its lack of practicality or maybe more appropriately, misleading nature of that statement.

JC29856

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

What we will do when she breaks up the banks?

You seem like a knowledgeable business person, would you mind answering a question?

If banks did not loan teenagers tens of thousands of dollars for secondary education what do you think will happen? In general.

If this happened in the way you are interpreting it, college loans for teenagers would be the absolute last concern I would have. That's not even in the top 100. Either way, dissolution of banking ain't happening.
Quick edit... the rallying cry... BREAK UP THE BREAKS is no different than BUILD A WALL in its lack of practicality or maybe more appropriately, misleading nature of that statement.

What way am I interpreting it? I just asked a question?

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

What we will do when she breaks up the banks?

You seem like a knowledgeable business person, would you mind answering a question?

If banks did not loan teenagers tens of thousands of dollars for secondary education what do you think will happen? In general.

If this happened in the way you are interpreting it, college loans for teenagers would be the absolute last concern I would have. That's not even in the top 100. Either way, dissolution of banking ain't happening.
Quick edit... the rallying cry... BREAK UP THE BREAKS is no different than BUILD A WALL in its lack of practicality or maybe more appropriately, misleading nature of that statement.

What way am I interpreting it? I just asked a question?

I didn't mean to jump on you.. but when you asked this question "If banks did not loan teenagers tens of thousands of dollars for secondary education what do you think will happen? In general.", it implies that you think that breaking up banks is a dissolution of them. Typically what that means (at least rationally) is splitting the brokerage houses from the consumer/commercial lending.

A brokerage house has the incentive to take some risks. You can't win in the market without risk, and there are different levels of risk. A commercial or consumer bank is trying to maximize interest revenue while minimizing bad loans. Culturally, they are different. What some banks have done (not all) was investing deposits. It's not illegal but can be risky. Deposits should typically be used to collateralize or underwrite loans. But some of the brokerage firms that went under were not affiliated with big banks, rather insurance.

Regarding your student loans, those are underwritten by the Fed mostly, and then some private companies like Navient, Discover and others. They would either be backed by deposits or securitized in the open market (not much of that today).

mrussel1

I guess the bottom line is:
1. Will it kill student loans? Absolutely not
2. Will it affect the federal loan program? Probably not
3. Will it affect your ability to get a private student loan, gap loan, etc.? It could. More reasonably, it might increase the cost of the private loans as the lender may have decreased access to funds. When you have fewer options, that means the banks who will lend to other banks will charge more. Supply and demand...

rssesq

her only grandchild's father is an investment banker/hedge funder whose father was a disgraced former congressman who did time for fraud.

She isn't gonna clean it up. (Wall Street)
She is gonna clean up.

CASH
RULES
EVERYTHING
AROUND
ME

JC29856

Hilly emails:

From: Sidney Blumenthal To: Hillary Clinton Date: 2012-11-09 23:35 Subject: H: MAY NOT BE UNRELATED AS PART OF ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT OBAMA; RE: BENGHAZI... S

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05793123 Date: 11/30/2015 RELEASE IN PART B6 Sidney Blumenthal From: Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 11:35 AM
Writer of piece, Josh Hersh, is Sy's son, works with Paul, my son at Huff Post. Sy, of course, hates, Woodward. I am told that these Woodward sources were FBI. Since Deep Throat, he has been an FBI asset, his career dependent.

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

Hilly emails:

From: Sidney Blumenthal To: Hillary Clinton Date: 2012-11-09 23:35 Subject: H: MAY NOT BE UNRELATED AS PART OF ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT OBAMA; RE: BENGHAZI... S

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05793123 Date: 11/30/2015 RELEASE IN PART B6 Sidney Blumenthal From: Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2012 11:35 AM
Writer of piece, Josh Hersh, is Sy's son, works with Paul, my son at Huff Post. Sy, of course, hates, Woodward. I am told that these Woodward sources were FBI. Since Deep Throat, he has been an FBI asset, his career dependent.

whoa... heavy.. right?

Dirtie_Frank

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/03/what-everyone-with-a-top-secret-security-clearance-knows-or-should-know/

In the world of handling America’s secrets, words – classified, secure, retroactive – have special meanings. I held a Top Secret clearance at the State Department for 24 years and was regularly trained in protecting information as part of that privilege. Here is what some of those words mean in the context of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails.

The Inspectors General for the State Department and the intelligence community issued a statement saying Clinton’s personal email system contained classified information. This information, they said, “should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.” The same statement voiced concern that a thumb drive held by Clinton’s lawyer also contains this same secret data. Another report claims the U.S. intelligence community is bracing for the possibility that Clinton’s private email account contains multiple instances of classified information, with some data originating at the CIA and NSA.

A Clinton spokesperson responded that “Any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted.” Clinton claims unequivocally her email contained no classified information, and that no message carried any security marking, such as Confidential or Top Secret.

The key issue in play with Clinton is that it is a violation of national security to maintain classified information on an unclassified system.

Classified, secure, computer systems use a variety of electronic (often generically called TEMPESTed) measures coupled with physical security (special locks, shielded conduits for cabling, armed guards) that differentiate them from an unclassified system. Some of the protections are themselves classified, and unavailable in the private sector. Such standards of protection are highly unlikely to be fulfilled outside a specially designed government facility.

Yet even if retroactive classification was applied only after Clinton hit “send” (and State’s own Inspector General says it wasn’t), she is not off the hook.

What matters in the world of secrets is the information itself, which may or may not be marked “classified.” Employees at the highest levels of access are expected to apply the highest levels of judgment, based on the standards in Executive Order 13526. The government’s basic nondisclosure agreement makes clear the rule is “marked or unmarked classified information.”

In addition, the use of retroactive classification has been tested and approved by the courts, and employees are regularly held accountable for releasing information that was unclassified when they released it, but classified retroactively.

It is a way of doing business inside the government that may at first seem nonsensical, but in practice is essential for keeping secrets.

For example, if an employee were to be handed information sourced from an NSA intercept of a foreign government leader, somehow not marked as classified, she would be expected to recognize the sensitivity of the material itself and treat it as classified. In other cases, an employee might hear something sensitive and be expected to treat the information as classified. The emphasis throughout the classification system is not on strict legalities and coded markings, but on judgment. In essence, employees are required to know right from wrong. It is a duty, however subjective in appearance, one takes on in return for a security clearance.

“Not knowing” would be an unexpected defense from a person with years of government experience.

In addition to information sourced from intelligence, Clinton’s email may contain some back-and-forth discussions among trusted advisors. Such emails are among the most sensitive information inside State, and are otherwise always considered highly classified. Adversaries would very much like to know America’s bargaining strategy. The value of such information is why, for example, the NSA electronically monitored heads of state in Japan and Germany. The Freedom of Information Act recognizes the sensitivity of internal deliberation, and includes a specific exemption for such messages, blocking their release, even years after a decision occurred. If emails discussing policy or decisions were traded on an open network, that would be a serious concern.

The problem for Clinton may be particularly damaging. Every email sent within the State Department’s own systems contains a classification; an employee technically cannot hit “send” without one being applied. Just because Clinton chose to use her own hardware does not relieve her or her staff of this requirement.

Some may say even if Clinton committed security violations, there is no evidence the material got into the wrong hands – no blood, no foul. Legally that is irrelevant. Failing to safeguard information is the issue. It is not necessary to prove the information reached an adversary, or that an adversary did anything harmful with the information for a crime to have occurred. See the cases of Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, Jeff Sterling, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou or even David Petraeus. The standard is “failure to protect” by itself.

None of these laws, rules, regulations or standards fall under the rubric of obscure legalities; they are drilled into persons holding a security clearance via formal training (mandatory yearly for State Department employees), and are common knowledge for the men and women who handle America’s most sensitive information. For those who use government computer systems, electronic tools enforce compliance and security personnel are quick to zero in on violations.

A mantra inside government is that protecting America’s secrets is everyone’s job. That was the standard against which I was measured throughout my career and the standard that should apply to everyone entrusted with classified information.

mrussel1

^ It's a good thing we don't indict people based on opinion pieces.

Dirtie_Frank

It is the truth though. Every computer that is in the State Department or DoD or CIA cannot be sent without a classification marker. That is a fact not an opinion.

mrussel1

Dirtie_Frank said:

It is the truth though. Every computer that is in the State Department or DoD or CIA cannot be sent without a classification marker. That is a fact not an opinion.

But hasn't her argument been that at the time they were possessed, they were marked unclassified? Isn't that the investigation's core?

JC29856

Dirtie_Frank said:

It is the truth though. Every computer that is in the State Department or DoD or CIA cannot be sent without a classification marker. That is a fact not an opinion.

Good luck with that one!

JC29856

Dirtie_Frank said:

It is the truth though. Every computer that is in the State Department or DoD or CIA cannot be sent without a classification marker. That is a fact not an opinion.

Example:
Hillary says our borders were / are strong over the last 10 years.
Reply: that's an opinion piece from some rag

She was the sec of state during some of that period.
Reply: that's obama too, plus the republicans would have found something in all of the investigations

Result: ignore

JC29856

https://youtu.be/zLuqvEZW4wA