Presumptuous Politics

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Jury finds Alabama House Speaker guilty on 12 ethics charges

Mike , center, and Susan Hubbard walk to the Lee County Justice Center for closing arguments in the Alabama House Speaker's Trial on Friday, June 10, 2016, in Opelika, Ala.

OPELIKA, Ala. – A jury on Friday found Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard guilty on 12 counts of public corruption — agreeing with prosecutors' assertions that the Republican used the power and prestige of his political offices to benefit his companies and clients.
The panel acquitted Hubbard on the remaining of the 23 charges he was facing. He talked briefly with his attorneys before a deputy escorted him out of the courtroom.
The verdict came after weeks of mostly reluctant testimony from Hubbard's inner circle and a roster of the state's business and political elite, including Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley and former Gov. Bob Riley. Hubbard, 54, has described Riley as a father figure and political mentor, and named his younger son after him.
Prosecutors accused Hubbard of using his political offices, as speaker and as former chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, to try to obtain $2.3 million in work and investments. The charges included that he directed GOP campaign work to his printing company; solicited investments and help to find employment from lobbyists and company executives; and used the power of his office to benefit his clients through legislative action or lobbying the governor's office. Hubbard argued the transactions were legal and within the bounds of the state ethics law and its exemptions for normal business dealings and friendships. His defense noted that the transactions involved people who were long-time friends.
Prosecutors and defense lawyers gave jurors dueling portraits of Hubbard, a man who helped guide Republican's rise to prominence in Alabama.
Defense lawyer Bill Baxley told jurors that Hubbard took care not to run afoul of state ethics law and asked advice from the then-director of the Alabama Ethics Commission.
Prosecutor Matt Hart depicted Hubbard as a conniving politician who seized at opportunities to make money through his political party work and elected office.
The trial accused Hubbard of violating a state ethics law he once championed after leading Republicans' rise to legislative power.
Hubbard was the general of Republicans' 2010 offensive to win control of the Alabama Legislature for the first time since Reconstruction. After the victory, Hubbard was elected speaker and the new GOP-controlled legislature approved revisions to the state's ethics law in a special session called by Riley.
Hubbard took the witness stand in his own defense at the trial.
Hubbard faces up to 20 years in prison for each ethics count. Sentencing is set for July 28.

Did the KGB breach Hillary Clinton's server?

EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton, from the moment her exclusive use of personal email for government business was exposed, has claimed nothing she sent or received was marked classified at the time.
But a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” - and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.
The “C” - which means it was marked classified at the confidential level - is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.
"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mukharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in."
Everything after that was fully redacted before it was publicly released by the State Department -- a sign that the information was classified at the time and dealt with sensitive government deliberations.
A US government source said there are other Clinton emails with classified markings, or marked classified, beyond the April 2012 document.
A January 2014 federal government training manual, called "Marking Classified National Security Information," provides a step-by-step guide for reviewing classified information, and allocating classified codes or "portion markings."
"This system requires that standard markings be applied to classified information...Markings shall be uniformly and conspicuously applied to leave no doubt about the classified status of the information, the level of protection required, and the duration of classification."
It adds, "A portion is ordinarily defined as a paragraph, but also includes subjects, titles, graphics, tables, charts, bullet statements, sub-paragraphs, classified signature blocks, bullets and other portions within slide presentations, and the like."
"Portion markings consist of the letters “(U)” for Unclassified, “(C)” for Confidential, “(S)” for Secret, and “(TS)” for Top Secret."
Congressman Mike Pompeo, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, has read the 22 Top Secret emails too damaging to national security to release, and routinely reviews classified documents.
While he could not speak directly to the April 2012 email, he said, "I've seen information like that often. Often certain parts of a particular message will be unclassified and other parts will be classified and they are almost always marked paragraph by paragraph."
Pompeo added, “If, in fact, it is truly marked confidential that would.. and she read it, that made it to her, that would conflict with what she had previously said."
On Wednesday, Clinton told Bret Baier on Special Report, “the fact is, nothing that I sent or received was marked classified, and nothing has been demonstrated to contradict that. “
Meantime, Clinton confidante Sidney Blumenthal, who spoke to Fox News as part of a book tour to promote his new biolgraphy, "A Self-Made Man: The Political Life of Abraham Lincoln, 1809-1849,"said that the Romanian hacker known as Guccifer -- who claimed to breach Clinton's personal server - may have worked for foreign intelligence.
"Marcel Lazar is a Romanian. He worked from a Russian server. He may well be part of a Russian information operation," Blumenthal explained.
While he said there's no way Lazar compromised Clinton's emails, the hacker told Fox News in a telephone interview before reaching a plea deal with the Justice Department that it was "easy for me, for everybody” to access the Clinton server.
Given more than 2,100 classified emails were on the server, Fox asked Blumenthal if he had a security clearance to handle such material. "I was her friend, and I had no security clearance, nor did I seek it, nor did anyone ever send me anything that was classified. So I had no access to, nor did I send or receive any classified material."
Blumenthal said he expects FBI Director James Comey to publicly confirm that Clinton and her aides did not deliberately compromise the nation's secrets.
"This is the question that is at the center of the Department of Justice FBI investigation: Whether anybody had intent, criminal intent to put classified information outside of the system. I believe that was not the case, and I think then, that we will see a statement coming from the FBI stating that, saying that... I assume that the FBI has an interest in - James Comey, the FBI Director has an interest in acting promptly to resolve this remaining question. But I feel confident about the resolution, " Blumenthal said.
Asked about the April 2012 email, and how the campaign could reconcile the classified marking with Clinton’s public statements, spokesman Brian Fallon did not directly address the issue. "This email was just a request for Secretary Clinton to make a phone call to express condolences over the passing of the President of Malawi. The fact that this email was classified after the fact suggests again that agencies in the government tend to err on the side of classifying even routine matters of diplomacy."

Trump, Clinton clash in dueling DC speeches

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, now at the starting line of a general election race, traded shots across the capital Friday in dueling addresses before two very different D.C. audiences -- each warning the other would take the country backward.
Trump headlined the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s “Road to Majority” summit while Clinton addressed a Planned Parenthood national conference.
Trump, looking to solidify his standing with evangelical Christians, offered assurances Friday that he would “restore respect for people of faith” -- and stressed the “sanctity and dignity of life.”
If there was any doubt he wanted to throw Clinton's Planned Parenthood speech into sharp relief, he took on his presumptive rival later in his remarks. Trump warned Clinton would "appoint radical judges," eliminate the Second Amendment, "restrict religious freedom with government mandates," and "push for federal funding of abortion on demand up until the moment of birth."
He also cast her support for bringing in Syrian refugees as a potential clash of faiths. "Hillary will bring hundreds of thousands of refugees, many of whom have hostile beliefs about people of different faiths and values," he said.
Clinton, meanwhile, in her first speech as the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee, said a Trump presidency would take the country back to a time “when abortion was illegal … and life for too many women and girls was limited.”
Clinton thanked the nonprofit women’s health group and abortion provider for their support in the Democratic primary race. In January, Planned Parenthood backed Clinton, offering its first-ever primary endorsement in the group’s 100-year history.
Clinton made it clear that women’s issues would be a staple of her campaign, promising abortion rights supporters that she would “always have your back” if elected president.
Clinton repeated claims that Trump wants to “take America back to a time when women had less opportunity” and freedom.
“Well, Donald, those days are over. We are not going to let Donald Trump -- or anybody else -- turn back the clock,” she told the cheering crowd.
Before arriving at the event, Clinton held a private meeting at her D.C. home with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has been rumored to be a consideration for running mate.
Echoing some of the attacks Warren has made in recent days, Clinton attempted to elevate the importance of this election.
“We are in the middle of a concerted, persistent assault on women’s health across the country,” warned Clinton, who said the 2016 election was “profoundly different” than previous elections.
In what is a campaign trail staple of hers, Clinton highlighted Trump’s insults toward women and asserted that it would be “hard to imagine depending on him to defend the fundamental rights of women.”
Trump, meanwhile, continued calling Clinton, “crooked Hillary” and referred to her ongoing email scandal. He took her to task on her domestic and foreign policy stances.
Trump was interrupted by protesters at the annual gathering of evangelical Christians. The protesters shouted “Stop hate! Stop Trump!” and “refugees are welcome here.”
Trump called the chants “a little freedom of speech” but added it was also “a little rude, but what can you do?”

Friday, June 10, 2016

Hillary Cartoons

Obama approves larger role for US forces in Afghanistan

WASHINGTON – After months of debate, the White House has approved plans to expand the military's authority to conduct airstrikes against the Taliban when necessary, as the violence in Afghanistan escalates, senior U.S. and defense officials said Thursday.

Several officials said the decision was made in recent days to expand the authority of U.S. commanders to strike the Taliban and better support and assist the Afghan forces when needed in critical operations, using the U.S. troops already in the country. There is a broad desire across the Obama administration to give the military greater ability to help the Afghans fight and win the war.

The 9,800 U.S. troops still in Afghanistan, however, would still not be involved in direct combat.

The officials were not authorized to talk publicly about the discussions so spoke on condition of anonymity.

The decision comes as the Afghans struggle with a resurgent Taliban, particularly in the south. But it is fraught with political sensitivities because President Barack Obama had made clear his commitment to get U.S. forces out of Afghanistan. That effort, however, has been stalled by the slow pace of the development of the Afghan military and the resilience of the Taliban.

The decision will give U.S. forces greater flexibility in how they partner with Afghan forces, but the new authorities must be used in selective operations that are deemed to have a strategic and important effect on the fight.

The Taliban are refocusing their attention mostly on the southern provinces of Helmand, Kandahar and Uruzgan, according to U.S. and Afghan military officials, although the insurgents also have struck elsewhere, such as in Kunduz province in the north, where they overran and held the provincial capital for a few days last fall.

The results have been daunting: The U.N. says 3,545 Afghan civilians were killed and 7,457 wounded in 2015, most of them by the Taliban.

The U.S. has continued to conduct counterterrorism strikes against Al Qaeda and Islamic State (ISIS) militants in Afghanistan. But strikes against the Taliban were largely halted at the end of 2014, when the U.S.-led coalition's combat role ended. Limited strikes have been allowed in cases of self-defense or when Afghan forces were in danger of being overrun.

Gen. John Nicholson, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has discussed with Defense Secretary Ash Carter his recommendations for moves the U.S. can make to further assist the Afghans. And there have been repeated conversations with the White House in recent weeks.

Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook, asked Thursday whether the administration was looking at expanding the U.S. military's authorities to strike the Taliban more broadly, said: "In every step of our review of Afghanistan, the question of what's the best way to use our forces is something we're constantly looking at. It's also in the same sense that we're looking at the number of troops. We are always looking at the authorities question and the best use of our troops."
Nicholson's predecessor, Gen. John Campbell, made it known before he left Kabul in March that he believed Carter should consider expanding U.S. military authorities to take on the Taliban.

As an example, U.S. troops are able to partner with Afghan special operations forces, but this new decision would allow commanders to have U.S. troops work more closely with conventional Afghan units in critical battles, including providing close air support or helping to call in strikes. Officials stressed that this will not allow routine U.S. airstrikes against the Taliban, just provide authority to take those actions when commanders believe they are vital to the fight.

Also under discussion is whether the U.S. should reduce the number of American troops in Afghanistan to 5,500 as planned by the end of this year, or if a higher number is needed. Campbell favored keeping the troop level at the current total of 9,800 into next year.

U.S. officials have insisted they are encouraged by the Afghan forces' resilience, despite their high rate of battlefield casualties. And they point to the Taliban's loss of its leader, Mullah Mohammed Akhtar Mansour, who was killed by a U.S. drone strike in late May in Pakistan.

The U.S. and NATO formally ended their combat mission in Afghanistan at the end of 2014, but have continued to provide support and assistance as the Afghan forces struggle to grow and gain greater capabilities, including in their air operations.

Brig. Gen. Charles Cleveland said last week that Nicholson was sending his assessment of the ongoing security threat there and the needs of the Afghan military to U.S. Central Command and to the Pentagon, and was expected to brief senior military leaders soon afterward.

Emails at center of Clinton FBI probe focused on drone strikes, report says

A series of emails between American diplomats in Pakistan and Washington over drone strikes are the focus of the criminal probe involving presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's handling of classified information, according to a report Thursday by The Wall Street Journal.
The emails in 2011 and 2012 were sent through a "computer system for unclassified matters" that gave the State Department input into whether a Central Intelligence Agency drone strike went forward, congressional and law enforcement officials briefed on the FBI probe told the Journal.
Some of those emails were then sent by then-Secretary of State Clinton's aides to her personal email account and private server, officials told the Journal.
The vaguely worded messages, however, didn’t mention the “CIA,” “drones” or details about the targets, the Journal reported.
The emails were written within the often-narrow time frame in which State Department officials had to decide whether or not to object to drone strikes before the CIA pulled the trigger, officials told the newspaper. The still-secret emails are still a part of the ongoing FBI investigation.
In January, the intelligence community deemed some of Clinton’s emails “too damaging" to national security to release under any circumstances, a U.S. government official close to the ongoing review told Fox News. A second source, who was not authorized to speak on the record, backed up the finding.
The determination was first reported by Fox News, before the State Department formally announced that seven email chains, found in 22 documents, will be withheld “in full” because they, in fact, contain “Top Secret” information.
Law-enforcement and intelligence officials told the Wall Street Journal that State Department deliberations about the covert CIA drone program should have been conducted over a more secure government computer system designed to handle classified information.

State Department officials told FBI investigators they communicated via the less-secure system on a few instances, sources told the Wall Street Journal, which happened when decisions about imminent strikes had to be relayed fast and the U.S. diplomats in Pakistan or Washington didn’t have ready access to a more-secure system, either because it was night or they were traveling.
Emails sent over the unclassified computer system sometimes were informal discussions that occurred in addition to more-formal notifications through secure communications, the officials said.
One exchange reported by the Journal came before Christmas in 2011 when the U.S. ambassador sent a note about a planned strike that sparked an email chain between Clinton's senior advisers. Officials said the exchange was clear those involved in the email were having discussions because they were away from their officials and didn't have access to a classified computer.

Fox News Poll: Majority thinks Clinton is lying about emails

American voters think Hillary Clinton put national security at risk by mishandling classified emails -- and that she’s lying about it.
By a 60-27 percent margin, they think she’s lying about how her emails were handled while she was secretary of state, according to the latest Fox News national poll of registered voters.
And by 57-32 percent, voters say U.S. safety was at risk because of Clinton’s mishandling of national secrets.
“Clinton’s explanations are clearly not cutting it with voters,” says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who conducts the Fox News Poll along with Democratic pollster Chris Anderson.
CLICK TO READ THE POLL RESULTS
“This issue continues to act as a drag on her personal ratings.”
Over half of voters feel Clinton lacks the integrity to serve effectively as president (54 percent), and nearly 6-in-10 have an unfavorable opinion of her (56 percent).
Roughly one third of self-identified Democrats think Clinton is lying about her emails (35 percent) and put national security at risk (32 percent).
Twenty-seven percent of those backing Clinton over Republican Donald Trump in the presidential race think she’s lying about her emails.
The State Department Inspector General concluded May 25 that Clinton failed to comply with department policies by using a private email server.
“The question is whether beliefs about Clinton’s handling of emails are already fully baked into perceptions of her, or if the issue can drag her down further,” says Anderson.
“Her emails must be the most talked about in the history of emails. Some voters are certainly bored with the issue and tuning it out.”
Views on this issue are holding steady. Earlier this year, 60 percent said Clinton had mishandled classified emails (February 2016). And 58 percent felt she was lying about it in September (the last time the question was asked on a Fox News Poll).
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cellphone interviews with 1,004 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from June 5-8, 2016. The poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all registered voters.

Dozens of lawsuits accuse Trump of not paying his bills, reports claim

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has been sued at least 60 times by individuals and businesses who accuse him of failing to pay for work done at his various properties, according to two published reports.
USA Today also reported, citing data from the Department of Labor, that two of Trump's now-defunct businesses were cited 24 times beginning in 2005 for failing to pay overtime or minimum wage. The cases were settled when the companies — the Trump Plaza in Atlantic City and Trump Mortgage LLC — agreed to pay back wages.
The paper also reported that more than 200 liens have been filed against Trump or his businesses by contractors and employees dating back to the 1980s. The claimants include curtain makers, chandelier shops, cabinet makers and even Trump's lawyers who represented him in prior cases.
Trump told USA Today that he only withheld payment from contractors if he wasn't pleased with their work.
"Let’s say that they do a job that’s not good, or a job that they didn’t finish, or a job that was way late. I’ll deduct from their contract, absolutely,” Trump said. “That’s what the country should be doing."
The USA Today report cited one case involving a 1990 project at the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City, during which New Jersey regulators found that Trump had failed to pay at least 253 subcontractors in full or on time.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, former Trump Plaza president Jack O'Connell said Trump made withholding payment a part of his business strategy.
"Part of how he did business as a philosophy was to negotiate the best price he could," O'Connell said. "And then when it came time to pay the bills," Trump would say "'I’m going to pay you but I’m going to pay you 75% of what we agreed to.'"
O'Connell added that Trump Plaza executives used to pay vendors in full despite their boss's orders, saying "it used to infuriate him."
More recently, USA Today reported that the management company behind Trump National Doral Miami settled with 48 servers who sued for unpaid overtime after working a 10-day Passover event. The average settlement for each worker was $800.
Also last month, a Florida judge ordered that the resort be foreclosed on and sold to pay a painter more than $30,000 for his work as part of a Doral renovation more than two years ago. In that case, the manager of the contractor behind the renovation testified that the painter was not paid because Trump had "already paid enough."
In his ruling, the judge noted that Trump's attorneys "visibly winced, began breathing heavily, and attempted to make eye contact" with the witness. Those attorneys have since filed a motion to delay the sale.

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Friday, June 10, 2016

Related Image

Related Image