The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[Soontir C'boath]

Just commenting on what I read through here in the past couple pages.

The reason we are in this damn quandary in the first place was the fact that we let things slide at all in the name of lesser of two evils. Yes, I understand the potential harm a Trump presidency can be. However, at the same time, it does not mean I will endorse the Democratic party/Hillary as it stands now either. To do so frankly is to give license to them that their platform and continual move to the right is acceptable. As long as they keep bringing up the boogeyman, they can keep edging away. For crying out loud, for someone like Debbie Debt Wasserman is able to be the DNC chair and at the same time sidle up with pay day loans that screw poor people, when can we just call them the new Republican party and the Republican Party, the Tea Party? Or do we stick with blue dog Democrats that amounts to the same thing?

You can all blame Nader or frankly more on Buchanan, for Gore's loss, but when the takeaway is to go the other way and become more conservative, there is something fundamentally wrong with the party.

So if I "throw away" my vote by playing a different long game by going for a third party like the Green for Jill Stein, then so be it. 3rd party growth is extremely hard to do, but that just means to me they need my vote more than Hillary does.

[Pelranius]

On a side note when I dug back through the last page or two...

Given the optics, you'd have a hard time convincing any AUSA who isn't Stannis Baratheon or Samuel Vines to take on such a high profile case with relatively minor legal stakes but so politically turbocharged.

...I am going to have happy dreams of Sam Vimes as attorney general now. Thank you.

Hah, no charge.

Now make Mr. Thunderbolt the Solicitor General while we're at it.

[Simon_Jester]

Mostly because thank fuck none of them have won. But we should judge people by their actions not by what they say.

I'm content with using that as a consistent standard except when the things a person chooses to say constitute a form of action in their own right. Here is an example:

Saying that you think Obama is a secret Muslim foreigner out to destroy America is not just saying things for the heck of it. It promotes xenophobia, lends credibility to conspiracy theories, and encourages a lot of Americans to keep up the practice of believing flat-out lies that are totally debunked by publicly available documents that 20 or 30% of Americans cannot be assed to even perceive exist.

Avowing a birther position, even if you don't believe in it, is wrong. It is a political action with consequences that are bad for our democracy, it is not 'just another opinion' or 'just another kind of speech.'

My problem with saying that Trump is "all talk" and judging him by his pre-2008 actions that are largely consistent with him being a moderate-ish centrist is that he has committed so many political actions by the way he has chosen to speak, by the way he has chosen to brand himself and represent himself and use his celebrity status for ill, that his record of talk adds to his record of action, in a bad way.

And Hillary does not have a corresponding record of speaking evil, of encouraging outright conspiracy theories and promoting hatred to secure support for herself. That is a significant difference.

But Clinton had been willing to do say shit and do other shit, she had been willing to throw her supporters under the bus. When she wins its probably going to be a continuation of the Obama/Bush Presidencies. Not world ending like Republicans think a Hillary Presidency will be or Democrats think a Trump Presidency will be but certainly alot of broken promises and probably more then a few broken laws.

Well, frankly, yes. But the thing is, calling Hillary a lousy sleaze or whatever purely because she's going to continue the Bush/Obama practices seems unjust to me. There are a LOT of establishment politicians who are, basically, happy with the status quo. They're willing to ride this train all the way to the end of the line, and they're too intellectually bankrupt to have any serious plan for how to stop it from going over the cliff.

Complaining about Clinton, specifically, when there are probably dozens upon dozens of other congressmen and governors who would do the same in her shoes, seems like singling out one person for a sin that our entire political establishment is suffering from. With a handful of exceptions we simply do not have people with big, ambitious ideas and a willingness to break from the corporate-security-state complex that dominates our government's policies.

This is not to say it's wrong to criticize Clinton, but it's probably wrong to single her out for criticism beyond what her peers receive for doing the same things.

Whether or not he is really a wannabe fascist (that term really has lost all meaning) he still shouldn't be elected period...

Eh, I honestly don't go around calling normal political candidates 'fascists.' Trump is the only person in mainstream or near-mainstream US politics in the past few decades I can think of who I would describe that way. And I only say that because he's ringing a lot of the bells of fascism, even if he's not ringing them as hard as, oh, Mussolini. I look at Eco's list of the fourteen elements of fascism...

http://interglacial.com/pub/text/Umbert ... scism.html

...I see at least echoes of ten out of the fourteen symptoms of fascism.

He's a piece of shit that shouldn't even be trusted to run a McDonalds. But my point has been the same is true of Hillary. She hasn't had to whore as much to pander to her base but she is just a fraudulent and should be just as unacceptable as a candidate.

Thing is, I don't see the evidence for Clinton being "just as fraudulent."

Trump has literally committed fraud in the legal sense of the word- the convictions aren't in yet but he has. He's run businesses that took thousands of dollars from each of a great number of people, for nothing. He's been playing games with his reputation and his ethics or lack thereof since, oh, the 1980s at the earliest.

I don't think Clinton, despite whatever level of corruption she may actually be guilty of, and in spite of a number of broken political promises, is in the same league as Trump as a fraudster.

And I ain't saying Trump ain't a criminal, ain't corrupt. But Trumps many crimes were semi-shady and blatantly illegal shite done as a businessman whereas Clinton has committed crimes while holding office. There is a different level of public trust there. Again that isn't defending Trump, something I'd prefer never to have to do unless Rosie O'Donnel is involved, but that certainly doesn't excuse Clinton. Both are corrupt but Clinton has shown a willingness to be corrupt while holding office.

This is equivalent to holding Clinton's experience in public office against her, by giving Trump free points for NOT having had an opportunity to show whether or not he's as corrupt and fraudulent in public affairs as he is in private affairs.

You can't use "A was in public office and did something wrong, which makes them worse than B who never did anything wrong in public office because they were never IN public office" as a valid argument.

Again, Charles Manson never committed a crime in public office and never betrayed the public trust- but you can bet your last dollar he would do something very wrong in public office, if he had ever been given the chance. You have to be willing to project what people would have done given the opportunity.

She hasn't pulled a 180 or 360 (my god Last Action Hero was an awesome movie) or whatever but she has went back on her word, has lied under oath, has been willing to fuck over people if it benefits her. She has pulled a 180 when it came ot gay rights, completely changing her position to better reflect the thankfully new normal of equal rights for the LGBT community (and goddamn it feels good to say that).

I ain't arguing Trump is a better candidate, fuck no, no, no god no, fuck that in the urethra with some rusty barb wire, my argument is they are both equally terrible.

As to gay rights... again, career politics. Anyone who's been in politics for twenty-five years (1991-2016) has been in office through a massive change in public attitudes toward homosexuality. A lot of them changed their mind somewhere along the way, either in response to changing public opinion or simply because their own views evolved as they had more opportunity to see gays as something other than demonic perverts (which is how they were portrayed when someone like Clinton was a child).

If you attack everyone who was moderately anti-gay in 1992, you're not going to have a lot of politicians left over the age of sixty or so.

[I say 'moderately' because I don't recall Clinton being on record as saying anything like 'burn the gays.' There's a difference between gays being disappointed by Clinton's lack of support, and having Clinton be actively attacking gays.]

I'm not seeing you accusing Hillary of anything that isn't painfully common among career politicians, with the possible exception of lying under oath... although frankly it seems like almost every politician who gets caught winds up doing that.

So basically your argument reduces to "Trump is no worse than the typical career politician, who is admittedly kind of a snake."

And I don't think I agree.

Even if Clinton's supporters wouldn't throw gay people under the bus I think Clinton probably literally would and certainly figuratively if it would benefit her. Thats not to say Trump wouldn't do the same, I'm fairly certain he would, but you can't act like Clinton is better then him when she has shown just as much of a willingness to fuck of the far too fucked over and not in the fun bedroom kind of way LGBT people.

Would you mind going into detail on this accusation against her, or linking to the place in the past where you did so? I don't think we can resolve this point of debate without laying out the evidence.

You cannot make this race about Clinton's lack of character, without also acknowledging Trump's lack of character. Either reputation counts, or it doesn't.

My point has been that both their lack of characters and terribad reputations should count. My point, just the tip of it, was you can't just automatically say Clinton is the better candidate when she is demonstratively just as terrible as Trump. They are both terrible people that should be banned from even looking in the general direction of the White House because they are so fracking fucking terrible.

And as I have outlined, I honestly think there are significant differences, and would like you to present more evidence for what you have argued, if you don't mind.

Honestly, yes to both, and numerous world leaders have already said so, so it's stupid to question this point. Lots of people already holding prominent office in foreign country have mocked Trump as a ridiculous posturing buffoon, have said things about him that they seldom or never said about Bush and certainly never said about Obama.

Well that seems like double dumbass on them for thinking some jackass who fights with fat blowhards and fires celebs on tv in between saying some of the dumbest most retarded conspiracy theories and some of the most racist bullshit seen on tv since someone shoved a camera in front of Cliven Bundy is worse then a mass murdering war criminal and a slightly less mass murdery spineless jackass...

Because in addition to, by all available evidence, being just as willing to commit mass murders (or even more willing!), he is also personally obnoxious and loathsome and displays a childishness and lack of restraint that would make him impossible to deal with.

But there's a difference between a bad person (whom you can deal with), and a crazy thuggish delusional arrogant person (whom you can't deal with).

Heads of state deal with bad people all the time. You have to, because you don't get to just ignore other countries purely because you don't like their leaders. People had to interact with the Soviet Union when it was run by Stalin, for instance.

What you cannot deal with is a person who does not understand the rules of diplomacy. Who does not exhibit restraint. Who does not have either a bare minimum of relevant knowledge or the willingness to shut up and look presidential while advisors handle the details. Who is so prone to grandstanding that you have no way of knowing when he's seriously about to declare war on your country and when he's just huffing and puffing to look badass to stupid people back home.

People like that go down in the history books, and not in a good way. They turn out to be people like Idi Amin or Kim-Jong Il, delusional idiots who turn their nation into a pariah and a laughingstock.

That's what I think a lot of foreigners see, when they look at Donald Trump. It's not just the crimes they think he's likely to commit. It's that his attitude and behavior suggest that he is totally, totally incompetent to handle international diplomacy, and that he is likely to be completely impossible and poisonous for them to deal with.

...

It's not necessarily about Trump being worse in the sense of "but what has he done YET" than Bush... although I will note that Trump can't really claim to have a cleaner record now than Bush had when he took office. Pretty much all the blood on Bush's hands materialized later.

It's incredibly short-sighted to reduce questions about Trump to "but what has he done YET" when it's obvious to everyone how reckless and incompetent he's likely to be in public office, or how many criminal or vicious things he's promised the voters that he's going to do.

And yet I see this pattern over and over. People get hung up on the fact that Trump hasn't done anything bad enough YET to compare to, say, the Iraq War. Or that he hasn't had any scandals regarding his illegal actions in public office YET.

And I say, look at the man's reputation, and tell me with a straight face you're confident he won't do more and worse if he actually gets any power.

Except that if you believe what they say, they don't, and if you judge them by what they actually did in past life compared to their current stated positions, then Clinton is being a hell of a lot more honest about her political views than Trump.

I don't believe what they say and the only reason why Clinton seems more honest is the fact she is pandering to a base more in line with her own supposed beliefs whereas Trump is not.

Then you have no evidence that Clinton is dishonest enough to say and do all the things Trump is saying and doing for power. Assuming she will do those things without evidence is not justified.

But I do not count Clinton as part of any hope. She is far too right wing for that. She is far too much like a neocon. She is far too willing to throw morals to the wayside.

Trump is no better, possibly worse, but certainly she is no paragon of virtue, shirley it is obvious that she is no model Democrat, it doesn't take a genius (after all I noticed it) to see she is a terrible person and terrible politician.

I've been arguing against "just as bad" not against "Clinton is not a paragon."

And again, because apparently you can't read worth shit because you are fucking empty headed moron who is the result of your mother sleeping with her brother and probably the family dog, he only started on the birther shit when he started on his Presidential bid. The birther movement didn't even exist until around 2008 and Trump didn't start into it until around 2011.

Trump didn't show any signs of running for President in 2012. There is a gap of several years between the time he started publicly pushing the birther nonsense and the time he started running for office.

Please don't insult people while pretending that the gap of several years does not exist. It makes you look very bad.

[Patroklos]

]Eh, I honestly don't go around calling normal political candidates 'fascists.' Trump is the only person in mainstream or near-mainstream US politics in the past few decades I can think of who I would describe that way. And I only say that because he's ringing a lot of the bells of fascism, even if he's not ringing them as hard as, oh, Mussolini. I look at Eco's list of the fourteen elements of fascism...

http://interglacial.com/pub/text/Umbert ... scism.html

...I see at least echoes of ten out of the fourteen symptoms of fascism.

They apply pretty damn well to Clinton too.

[Simon_Jester]

Care to give me the rundown on how?

[Patroklos]

I will after work, and I request the same from you regarding trump for purpose of comparison.

[maraxus2]

Looks like Bernie has finally decided to fish or cut bait.

Link

Bernie Sanders Is Expected to Endorse Hillary Clinton Next Week
By PATRICK HEALYJULY 7, 2016

Senator Bernie Sanders in Washington on Wednesday. Credit Zach Gibson for The New York Times
After three weeks of private preparations, Senator Bernie Sanders is expected to endorse Hillary Clinton on Tuesday at a campaign event in New Hampshire, according to three Democrats who have been involved in the planning.

The Clinton campaign on Thursday announced the New Hampshire trip but did not provide details, including any mention of Mr. Sanders.

Mr. Sanders, in an interview Thursday with Bloomberg View’s Al Hunt, came as close to endorsing Mrs. Clinton as he ever has, saying: “We have got to do everything that we can to defeat Donald Trump and elect Hillary Clinton. I don’t honestly know how we would survive four years of a Donald Trump as president.”

The three Democrats, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to reveal confidential conversations, said that the endorsement was partly the result of daily talks between Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, and the Sanders campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, about bringing together the two rivals and advancing the policy priorities of Mr. Sanders. The discussions included a dinner between Mr. Mook and Mr. Weaver in Burlington, Vt., where Mr. Sanders has his campaign headquarters.

One possible obstacle to party unity — a fight between Sanders and Clinton allies over a congressional vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal — is not seen as a deal breaker to the eventual endorsement, the Democrats said. Mr. Sanders wants language added to the party’s policy platform opposing any vote on the deal, despite it being a high priority of the Obama administration.

Mr. Sanders has been a staunch opponent of the trade pact, and Mrs. Clinton, who once called it “the gold standard in trade agreements,” has come out against it as well. But her allies on the platform-writing committee, in line with the wishes of administration officials, have blocked an effort by Sanders allies to insert language opposing it. The Sanders camp will try again at a platform committee meeting in Orlando, Fla., on Friday and Saturday.

Photo

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders at a presidential debate in Brooklyn on April 14. Credit Chang W. Lee/The New York Times
Mr. Sanders’s endorsement is also expected to ensure that he has a prominent speaking slot at the Democratic convention late this month, the three Democrats said. They added that it was not clear yet when Mr. Sanders would speak or whether the convention would include a full roll-call vote on Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders as candidates for the party’s nomination.

Mrs. Clinton has already begun moving toward Mr. Sanders on other issues. On Wednesday she proposed eliminating tuition at in-state public college and universities for families with annual incomes up to $125,000; Mr. Sanders, who had supported making public colleges free for all, praised her plan.

The Democrats also said that the Sanders campaign was eager to see Mrs. Clinton take another step toward him on the issue of health care, perhaps by making a new commitment to press Congress to add a “public option” to the Affordable Care Act. Mrs. Clinton has long supported the public option, but she also criticized Mr. Sanders during their nomination fight for wanting to reopen congressional debate over government-run health care debate and replace the Affordable Care Act with single-payer health insurance.

The refusal by Mr. Sanders to endorse Mrs. Clinton — or even to suspend his campaign after she clinched the nomination on June 7 — has increasingly turned the senator into an odd-man-out in the presidential race.

President Obama endorsed Mrs. Clinton during a joint event in North Carolina on Tuesday, and she is set to campaign with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in Pennsylvania on Friday. She also campaigned in another swing state, Ohio, with Senator Elizabeth Warren, who shares many progressive policy goals with Mr. Sanders — as well as many of his admirers. Senator Warren’s support for Mrs. Clinton, in particular, threatened to marginalize Mr. Sanders among liberals and provide Mrs. Warren with the highly visible role of progressive champion during the fall election.

While some allies of Mr. Sanders worry that his endorsement will be too-little, too-late, he still has some sway over the 12 million Americans who voted for him in the nominating contest. Mrs. Clinton is eager for party unity, especially since a sizable minority of Sanders supporters is resisting her. With some of them planning to hold events and demonstrations outside the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, there is obvious value to Mrs. Clinton in making peace with Mr. Sanders and having him in her camp.

Asked if anything had changed to bring around Mr. Sanders around, the three Democrats said that he wanted to see progress on his policy goals like free public college, but that he was also going through a natural grieving period for his candidacy after a yearlong, hard-fought race.

snip posturing

Crass insults do not make up for the fact that you have a shitty position. You are saying something, that Hillary and Trump held identical policy positions prior to 2015, that is objectively not true. I helpfully pointed this out to you, and even explained why I think your rationale for thinking this is not super convincing.

Stop being a tryhard. Nobody likes a tryhard.

[Simon_Jester]

Among the elements I perceive, either latent or explicit, in the words and deeds of Trump and his supporters in this campaign, I perceive the following elements. I number them as Eco numbered them in his article The Eternal Fascist, so certain numbers are missing.

On further reflection, Trump-ism may only be exhibiting nine of the fourteen elements, rather than ten as I had first thought. It is debatable.

I dropped (1) because I don't feel that Trump or his supporters practice the "cult of tradition" in the specific, syncretic form Eco discusses. (2), the specific rejection of modernism as such, is debateable although you can make a case for it.

However, we then come to...

3) The cult of action for action's sake
Trump is being backed in large part because he acts without reflection, speaks without caution. To quote Eco describing the underlying ideology of fascism, there is this attitude that "thinking is a form of emasculation," and "therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes."

This mindset, which defines itself in opposition to 'ivory-tower intellectuals' is not unique to Trump and is not even in all ways unique to the right, but it is very strongly expressed in Trump's campaign style and his stated intentions on entering office.

4) The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.
Eco comments "For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason," and I don't think that's far wrong as a characterization of the mindset sprouting among quite a few Trump supporters. The reason opponents of Trump have been assaulted at Trump rallies is because of the budding status of this attitude- that people who disagree are traitors to the nation and to the movement.

5) Disagreement is a sign of diversity
Again, quoting Eco, "Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders."

Check that one off the list.

6) Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.

Eco cites this as why "one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old "proletarians" are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority."

Check.

7) To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.

Thus you get nationalism and nativism, denying associations of class and other minorities within American society, in favor of a nativist American identity that can be defended against sneaky illegal immigrants and frightening Muslims. Check.

8 ) The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.

And yes, there's a degree of doublethink involved in this- read the article. I linked to it earlier. The typical way around this is for the fascist to identify multiple groups of enemies. Some will be the 'foreign hordes' to be repelled by a flexing of nationalist muscle, while others will be the 'rich, powerful conspiracy' bent on overthrowing the nation from within. To the far right in general in the US, the "liberal elite," which is viewed as being rich, snobby, controlling, and out of touch serves admirably in the 'treacherous backstabbing conspirator' role.

Check.

(9) is debateable. There is, in Trump-ism, the seed of the idea that the nation is by definition trapped in permanent struggle against various threats, but the seed has not blossomed. Then we have...

10) Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic... elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.

This expresses itself in Trump-ism more in economic terms. It is the foundation of one of his strengths. It is one of Trump's greatest appeals to the broader base of his supporters, the ones who are NOT rabid xenophobes or otherwise complete loonies.

It is cult of the businessman, on the idea that as a corporate leader with lots of money, he has unique qualifications that ordinary people (and ordinary politicians) do not have. As a rich man, he is implicitly virtuous and a good manager of people. Poor people, conversely, are implicitly undeserving and lowly, and there is no need for society to do anything to ease their plight. This has been a recurring theme in neoliberalism, the foundation of Republican economic policy, for several decades- but Trump is particularly qualified to tap into it and exploit it, because he has spent those same decades building up his public image as virtually synonymous with "wealth."

(11) does not apply. To some extent, however, we do see

12) Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.

As Eco describes it, "This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons -- doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise."

Machismo, frankly, is a strong element of Trump's chosen public persona- he deliberately ramps up his own presentation as a 'macho' figure to a high degree, eliminating anything that could be remotely considered feminine or effeminate about his personality. That includes things we normally consider to be desirable traits in both men and women alike, such as 'politeness,' 'prudence,' 'graciousness' and 'class' in the sense of 'classy.' Trump makes a considerable effort to make his supporters think he lacks these things, because that is how he appears macho to them. This includes the disdain for women, and to a certain extent condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, although many of his supporters will simply take the latter for granted even if he restricts himself to the dog-whistle approach.

And then you see Trump supporters carrying guns at rallies, well... enough said. I feel I have grounds to say...

Check.

13) Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.

Quoting Eco: "In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view -- one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. Since no large quantity of human beings can have a common will, the Leader pretends to be their interpreter. Having lost their power of delegation, citizens do not act; they are only called on to play the role of the People. Thus the People is only a theatrical fiction. There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People."

I quote this passage in its entirety because it does a good job of explaining what is going on here. Trump's targeted appeals are going to a faction of the American population. Specifically, American whites, more so the males than the females, and primarily those whites who feel cheated and attacked by immigrants and who feel that a blunt, macho, xenophobic businessman in the White House is just what we need to "make America great again." While whites remain a majority of the American population as a whole, this particular faction of whites is not a majority of the population.

And yet for purposes of public theater, this faction is quite happy to play the role of The People- the real Americans, as if all the other Americans who are funny-colored or aren't worried about immigration and think expelling Muslims is a bad idea are somehow less valid and less real.

So I think Eco did a great job of describing this, the very 'TV or Internet populism" which we are now seeing. Note that this IN PARTICULAR is an accusation you could also levy against the far left, if you were so inclined.

I do not think it fair to accuse the Trump-ists of (14), the use of newspeak.

[The Romulan Republic]

As to the Bernie endorsing Clinton thing, I think that now is potentially as good a time as he's going to get. I can't say for certain, of course, but I think the timing, doing it now rather than waiting until the convention as he previously said, may be down to several things:

1. Its pretty clear now that their isn't an imminent indictment, so no hope of Clinton being ousted as the nominee at the last moment (in which case Bernie would have been the obvious alternative, at least if it happened before the convention, when he was still running).

2. He just got a major compromise on education, so he has something big to show to his supporters, to show that it wasn't all for nothing, and give them another reason to get behind Clinton.

3. Its increasingly looking like there's going to be a fight on the convention floor over the TPP, and it'll probably be less awkward and divisive for him to endorse now and then fight it out over the TPP than have that confrontation and then do an immediate about-face and endorse Clinton at the convention.

4. Don't have a source at the moment, but I've been told that the time that he's reportedly going to do this, next week, is right after the next meeting of the platform committee, so that might factor into it somehow.

In any case, I think the timing is good to get this question out of the way once and for all. Indeed, I would have preferred a little sooner, but I don't think the Democrats' prospects will suffer for this slight delay, and Sanders has gotten some major gains on the platform.

[Mr Bean]

Well Time Warner lets my internet die(dead shitty lowest no-bid contractor modem) and everything goes to hell and I get to eat one heaping plate of crow.

1. James Comey comes out and says "we know she qualifies for charges but we can't charge her because we can't prove intent never mind Mr "I'm not allowed to hold a security clearance" Sidney Blumenthal having access to a server containing hundreds of classified emails the FBI director says they can't proven intent never mind in classified laws fuck your intent if you allowed undesignated persons access to classified information you go to Leavenworth.

But on point one, statement the first I was wrong, Secretary Clinton was not indicted. I say this after months of saying she would be indicted because I misplaced my trust in the FBI... and I was convinced that the Clinton Foundation was the reason the investigation was taking so long, as far as I've read today nothing was mentioned about that at all? It's not under any sort of investigation? If so what took the extra seven months?

2. Donald Trump has already won
Not the Presidency, no he's still miles away from that, but when Trump has the shit week to top all shit weeks is down in the polls by fifteen points and a week later he's down by four or less? Donald Trump has already won, behold our entertainer in chief he's going to get so damn rich off the next season of the Apprentice.

I bet he can't wait to raise his speaking fees to 225,001$ for every hour he speaks. And if by some accident/insanity he ends up as President he's going to get filthy stinking rich off of that.

[Dalton]

Donny Jingles doesn't know what to do with a hot scandal when he has it. He immediately blew up his advantage by focusing on the anti-semitic accusations and praising Saddam Hussein. Conservatives are face-palming right now and his recent meeting with House GOP did little to reassure them by all accounts. He was actually grandstanding about defending Article I of the constitution, then article II, then article...12

[Mr Bean]

Jesus Titty Fucking Christ
Re:The Link
Director James Comey admits Secretary Clinton is Guilty of violating the law in today's Senate hearings.

Again why the fuck are they not charging her?

[Terralthra]

Jesus Titty Fucking Christ
Re:The Link
Director James Comey admits Secretary Clinton is Guilty of violating the law in today's Senate hearings.

Again why the fuck are they not charging her?

That section of the law very specifically denotes four types of classified information for which the charge applies, and specifies that the access must be given "knowingly and willfully". Presumably, the many competent people at the FBI figured they'd have a very difficult time proving intent and declined to prosecute. What she did and what it can be proven she did knowingly and willfully are not the same thing.

[Elheru Aran]

Jesus Titty Fucking Christ
Re:The Link
Director James Comey admits Secretary Clinton is Guilty of violating the law in today's Senate hearings.

Again why the fuck are they not charging her?

That section of the law very specifically denotes four types of classified information for which the charge applies, and specifies that the access must be given "knowingly and willfully". Presumably, the many competent people at the FBI figured they'd have a very difficult time proving intent and declined to prosecute. What she did and what it can be proven she did knowingly and willfully are not the same thing.

Yeah. To make a quick off-the-cuff analogy (probably a shitty one but what can you do) it's like cooking a recipe and accidentally leaving out some ingredient, but it turns out okay anyway, versus deliberately omitting an ingredient for effect.

Hillary Clinton was in public office for years, and no doubt she felt she was familiar enough with the procedures at hand that even if she was briefed-- and I can't imagine that anybody assuming an office in the Cabinet wouldn't get at least a cursory review of "you can do this, but don't do this" stuff-- she may have simply glossed over it. It's not an excuse, but it's an explanation.

[maraxus2]

2. Donald Trump has already won
Not the Presidency, no he's still miles away from that, but when Trump has the shit week to top all shit weeks is down in the polls by fifteen points and a week later he's down by four or less? Donald Trump has already won, behold our entertainer in chief he's going to get so damn rich off the next season of the Apprentice.

I bet he can't wait to raise his speaking fees to 225,001$ for every hour he speaks. And if by some accident/insanity he ends up as President he's going to get filthy stinking rich off of that.

On the first point, what are you talking about? Trump's down nationally by about the same margin since early last week. Doesn't really matter which aggregator you use. They all show basically the same thing.

It will be nice for him to actually be wealthy tho, as opposed to the pretend billionaire he plays on TV.

[Patroklos]

Among the elements I perceive, either latent or explicit, in the words and deeds of Trump and his supporters in this campaign, I perceive the following elements. I number them as Eco numbered them in his article The Eternal Fascist, so certain numbers are missing.

I am not going to discuss your assessment point for point as I don't really have a major issue with what you say as mere data points, only how you interpret them. More on that after my assessment of HRC.

1.) The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.

I think you have let Trump off the hook on this one, though I won't do the same for Hillary. Trump for instance, in the "Make America Great" message, is essentially hankering back to some mythologized past where the answers are clear. HRC does the same thing with all these allusions to an imaginary mid 20th century where the middle class lived some utopian lifestyle, tax rates were proper, civil rights were somehow better, etc. These are both build around a fetishized narrative of a traditional America that has all the answers.

Its mild relative to actual fascist examples in both instances, but it is present.

2.Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism

Rejection of Globalization. Market Protectionism (almost mercantilism in some rehetoric). Assaults on due process. The worship of obsolete economic models like heavy manufacturing over modern models. The derailing of academic freedom. Even the rejection of the due process of law for sexual crimes. Sure we get talk about how cool Teslas are, but just as your source noted about past fascists these are thin veils to cover a true longing for antiquated and imagined return to how things ought to have remained from decades past.

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.

N/A. She is an opportunist, and that means doing nothing if its expedient.

4) The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.

This is damning indictment of the left in general including HRC. If you are not on the exact narrative you are a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a war criminal, etc. You don't even have to be on the right to get the treatment as Bernie supporters found out in spades. Trump is definitely a with us or against us type of guy, but that's in regards to support of him. He doesn't really five a crap what you think as long as you vote for him. Only one side is working off of ideological purity tests in the current atmosphere.

5) Disagreement is a sign of diversity

Hell, there are few more talented class warriors out there than HRC. She is only marginally less talented at race baiting.

6) Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.

This is the bread and butter of the HRC only with the boogey man coming from the top rather than the bottom. Of course now her and Trump share the distinction of using the job stealing penny wage masses of the developing world as their economic scapegoat on top of that.

7) To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.

How many times do we have to be lectured about the majority minority nation and how this is sooooo much better, how the current America doesn't embody REAL American values, and how we have to live up to our potential, and the white people are screwing you? There is a weekly diatribe about how the "corporate fat cats" are colluding to destroy the American way of life. Kochs and co orchestrating the destruction of anything not old and white? She coined the term VRWC after all.

8 ) The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.

Again, this is HRCs bread and butter. The rich people are screwing you. The white people are screwing you. The police are screwing you. The men are screwing you. Globalization is screwing you. At the same time you are destined to overcome them all because you are on the right side of history.

9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.

This is basically SJWism 101. Everyone is a victim, everyone is struggling against injustice. There is a new strain of this, picked up by HRC and others, where its no longer sufficient to be an "ally," you have to be in the street with us or you are just a collaborator. This was especially outspoken in the HRC crowd regarding gun control recently. But we get the same thing regarding women's rights and others. You better be actively fighting the man, or you are gain a label of racist, misogynist, homophobe, etc. This is used against their own as often as against the other.

10) Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic... elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.

We couldn't have had a better example of this regarding HRC than her email fiasco. She is not a NORMAL, she doesn't have to follow the rules. She knows better because of her supposed experience and can't be bothered to follow basic rules like everybody else.

Rule by the enlightened intellectual or technocrat is baked into the cake with pretty much any mainstream left candidate.

11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.

N/A

12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.

"If you don't vote for Hillary you are a misogynist" is a major element of HRCs campaign even if it isn't always overtly spoken. It has, however, been overtly spoken before by official HRC campaign surrogates such as Albright and company's missteps regarding Sanders. You want to make herstory right? Why would you not want to may herstory...


13) Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.

This is just everyday leftist politics. HRC is well versed in in. I will quote Eco in particular regarding "Wherever a politician casts doubt on the legitimacy of a parliament because it no longer represents the Voice of the People, we can smell Ur-Fascism." Thats a dead ringer for HRC and her surrogates.

14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.

Yeah, its mild compared to the 1984 example but controlling speech as typified by all the recent college anti 1st Amendment shenanigans and this rhetoric is alive and well inside the HRC campaign. Hell those students make up the bulk of her staff.

----

So I count 12 which apply directly to HRC, with three being relatively mild. Note I would expand your assessment of Trump by one as well.

But this is my issue with lists such as this. There isn't any party or politician that does not fit into most of these categories in a superficial way which is how I would describe what I did with HRC and you Trump for the most part. The context matters, the severity of the activity in each category, etc.

For instance, if I really wanted to make a fascist comparison the most direct link would be the recent violence from organized left groups stalking Trump supporters from event to event with the explicit and proudly announces purpose of interfering with their freedom to engage in political activity via violence. As heinous as that is, its still stupid because compared to Brownshirts the gulf between them on the spectrum becomes so significant to make an equivalency ridiculous.

So basically when I hear people making these equivalencies I assess them to be engaging in exactly some of the things this list describes.

[Mr Bean]

Jesus Titty Fucking Christ
Re:The Link
Director James Comey admits Secretary Clinton is Guilty of violating the law in today's Senate hearings.

Again why the fuck are they not charging her?

That section of the law very specifically denotes four types of classified information for which the charge applies, and specifies that the access must be given "knowingly and willfully". Presumably, the many competent people at the FBI figured they'd have a very difficult time proving intent and declined to prosecute. What she did and what it can be proven she did knowingly and willfully are not the same thing.

Yeah. To make a quick off-the-cuff analogy (probably a shitty one but what can you do) it's like cooking a recipe and accidentally leaving out some ingredient, but it turns out okay anyway, versus deliberately omitting an ingredient for effect.

Hillary Clinton was in public office for years, and no doubt she felt she was familiar enough with the procedures at hand that even if she was briefed-- and I can't imagine that anybody assuming an office in the Cabinet wouldn't get at least a cursory review of "you can do this, but don't do this" stuff-- she may have simply glossed over it. It's not an excuse, but it's an explanation.

To give you a comparison, in every other case I've heard off during Classified Materials Handling courses the Navy and the various DoD department's teach that to use your analogy "accidentally leaving out an ingredient" is still worth five years in prison.

The example cases were people like John Deutch (Former CIA head Director who kept classified information on his home computer hmm) who was charged... and pardoned by Bill Clinton before the case went to trial. (Moral of the story, it's President Bush now and he won't pardon you) plus the various spies oh and the Pentagon papers. These briefings are bi-yearly for anyone holding a high level clearance from the US President on down to the lowest office drone with only their length and reporting requirements changing depending on if your military, civilian(contractor) or government employee.

Having classified information on a non-secure computer is in and off itself meets the gross violation standard since classified information is required to stay within the classified eco-system. Then letting someone have access to your unsecured system that's a compounding of the original offense. In the secrecy world there's no such thing as a second chance unless no one important ever learns you fucked up and drove home with that Top Secret Memo still in your briefcase (One Lt I know) or left the classified minutes of the meeting sitting in the conference room after everyone left where the cleaning staff found and returned them... without reporting it which they should have and had they done so that Contractor would have instantly lost his job as a result and may have been charged.

In my experience in this world when anything goes missing, is mishandled or anything resulting in a report or worse an investigation happens the party in question is sat down and explained their life/job is over and done with, any equivocation or lying and we will charge you under Title 18 Section 793 because as it turns out, proving those cases are about as easy as proving child molester charges. Not because they are inherently easy but juries are inherently biased against anyone showing up being charged with endangering the state.

[Mr Bean]

On the first point, what are you talking about? Trump's down nationally by about the same margin since early last week. They all show basically the same thing.

What are you talking about, the averages make my point if we started this month in a statistical tie between Trump and Clinton and ended June with Trump down 2% across all polls? Five thirty eight has a pretty scatter point to show all the polls and the weighted average (IE Rasmussen counts for less) and after the worst month ever for Trump he's mostly back to where he was a month ago. Example polls like Survey USA's going from Clinton +4 a month ago to +12 two weeks ago to +4 this week. He had two weeks of real shite poll numbers and now he's trending back towards the 1%-5% behind Clinton again he was back at the end of May.

[Patroklos]

The briefings are annual, at least in the military. This year I had four including refreshers on derivative classification., the usually Cyber Awarness Challenge that many of the best gifs about this incident comes from, as well as insider threat training. I actually took them on the day Comey announced Hillary had done nearly everything this training was designed to tell us not to do short of actually handing stuff over to foreign nationals. Like, line for line. It was quite comedic to be clicking through this stuff knowing what had just happened.

[Terralthra]

To give a different sense of perspective, there's this:

Amid the press furor over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton opting to use private email, and not a government email address, some are now raising important questions about if those who are investigating her – such as the chairmen of congressional committees who deal with sensitive information during the course of investigations – are themselves using private email.

Take, for example, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who succeeded Rep .Darrell Issa (R-CA) to be head of the House's Government Oversight committee. Chaffetz's business card lists a Gmail address, as shown here by ABC News:







But Chaffetz may not be alone in doing official business with private email. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who heads the House's Select Committee on Benghazi, is leading the charge in calling for investigations of Clinton's email.

Yet it's important to note that Gowdy maintains his own domain treygowdy.com. For example, one campaign contact email he used was info@treygowdy.com. While it's not unusual to maintain such a thing particularly for campaign work, it's not clear that Gowdy utilizes this email solely for political campaign work and not congressional tasks. AlterNet asked Gowdy's office through both a telephone inquiry followed up by an email communication to his press secretary about how he segregates work he conducts through his personal domain vs congressional work. We also inquired about where his personal email server is stored and how it is secured. We also attempted to contact Gowdy campaign manager George Ramsey, but he did not return our phone calls. In 48 hours, the deadline we set, we received no response.

We weren't the only ones this week to ask Gowdy about his personal email address and fail to receive a response. Correct The Record's David Brock sent an open letter with the same inquiry:

Dear Chairman Gowdy:

I noted with interest your public demand that Secretary Clinton turn over her personal email server, presumably so that the committee can access some 30,000 Clinton emails deemed to be strictly private and beyond the reach of the government.

This Orwellian demand has no basis in law or precedent. Every government employee decides for themselves what email is work-related and what is strictly private. There is no reason to hold Secretary Clinton to a different standard— except partisan politics.

But since you insist that Clinton’s private email be accessed, I’m writing today to ask you and your staff to abide by the same standard you seek to hold the Secretary to by releasing your own work-related and private email and that of your staff to the public.

While I realize that Congress regularly exempts itself from laws that apply to the executive branch, I believe this action is necessary to ensure public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of your investigation.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

David Brock
Correct The Record

It's true that there are legitimate issues with Clinton failing to segregate work and personal email. But it's troubling that Members of Congress handling sensitive investigations into national security matters such as the Benghazi incident don't appear to be willing to be transparent about their own email practices.

Any bets on what we'd find regarding classified information if we looked through Rep. Gowdy's or Rep. Chaffetz's email?

[Patroklos]

Do you have any information to suggest that happened? I have a personal email address too, should it be assumed I sent top secret weapons plans using it just because it exists?

It should be noted that HRC having a server wasn't want prompted all of this. It was a FOIA request for her government account that couldn't be answered because there were suspiciously zero records to fulfill it with. If we find out Gowdy's official email account inbox is empty, feel free to dig. Is there such a smoking gun?

[Gaidin]

Any bets on what we'd find regarding classified information if we looked through Rep. Gowdy's or Rep. Chaffetz's email?

Yea..uhh...HELL NO.

For years, some have argued that we need a 28th Amendment to the Constitution providing that all members of Congress have to comply with all laws that other citizens have to obey. "Congress shall make no law," the amendment might read, "that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the senators and/or representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the senators and/or representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

Others apparently have faith in the high moral character of their elected officials and argue that we shouldn't have to enact a constitutional amendment to make sure Congress follows the same laws all Americans do.

Yet history shows that is definitely not the case. Over the decades, Congress has passed innumerable statutes that regulate every aspect of life in the American workplace, then quickly exempted themselves.

In 1938, when the Fair Labor Standards Act established the minimum wage, the 40-hour workweek, and time and a half for overtime, Congress exempted itself from coverage of the law. As a result, for decades congressional employees were left without the protections afforded the rest of Americans working in private industry.

In 1964, with great fanfare, President Johnson signed the landmark Civil Rights Act, including Title VII, which for the first time protected all Americans from employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. But the law exempted Congress from its coverage, so thousands of staffers and other employees on the Hill were left with no equal-opportunity protection. Staffers could be discriminated against or sexually harassed with legal impunity.


Some will remember Bob Packwood, the former senator from Oregon who resigned his seat in 1995 under threat of expulsion for alleged serial harassment of female staffers and lobbyists. The women who alleged they had been repeatedly victimized by the senator had no legal recourse under federal law. Had Mr. Packwood been a corporate executive instead of a lawmaker, he likely would have been sued for millions.

The same blanket congressional exemption found in Title VII was contained in a total of 10 other federal statutes regulating the American workplace, including protections from age and disability discrimination, occupational safety and health rules, family and medical leave, and many other issues that Congress felt important enough to impose on American industry. These federal laws apply to all civilian employees in the U.S., except those working on the Hill.

Critics advanced the rather sensible and straightforward proposition that U.S. lawmakers should live by the same laws they impose on private employers and state and local elected officials.

Nonetheless, when the comprehensive reform of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 was passed, efforts to eliminate the exemption failed. The immunity of members of Congress from lawsuits for compensatory and punitive damages in cases of employment discrimination continued.

Instead, the federal lawmakers enacted a toothless, self-policing system whereby Congress investigated and enforced its own compliance with civil-rights laws.

Given the choice, private employers no doubt would welcome the opportunity to police themselves on matters of equal-employment opportunity. Who wouldn't prefer self-regulation over dealing with government enforcement agencies and federal court juries considering punitive damages? However, unlike the Congress, private employers don't have the option of self-regulation.

Pressure on Congress mounted and finally, in 1995, with Republicans in control of the House and Senate, the Congressional Accountability Act was passed, eliminating the congressional exemption for all workplace laws and regulations. Some thought passage of the law marked the end of congressional exceptionalism through exemption. They were mistaken.

Insider trading (the buying and selling of stocks based on insider information not available to the general public) has been a violation of federal securities laws for almost 80 years. Yet it was never illegal for members of Congress. Not, that is, until a November 2011 report by CBS's "60 Minutes" shamed Congress into changing the law to prohibit members of Congress and their staffs from trading on inside information. The report was largely based on research conducted by the Hoover Institution's Peter Schweizer for his book, "Throw Them All Out," published that same month. Speaking about the legislators capitalizing on their positions, Mr. Schweizer told Steve Kroft on the program: "This is a venture opportunity. This is an opportunity to leverage your position in public service and use that position to enrich yourself, your friends and your family."

Six months after the "60 Minutes" segment with Mr. Schweizer aired, Congress passed and the president signed the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012, which bans insider trading by lawmakers and their staffs. But just last week, while voters were focused on emotional issues such as immigration and gun control, House and Senate members voted to repeal a key provision of the so-called Stock Act—the one that required online posting of their staffs' financial transactions.

It's not yet clear whether the president will sign the repeal, but it shouldn't be necessary to take a piecemeal approach to rolling back congressional exemptions, ending them—as with the ones for workplace rules and insider trading—only when they become embarrassing. Nor will blocking exemptions here and there prevent members of Congress, particularly those who serve numerous terms, from developing a sense of privilege that makes them think they're above the law.

America shouldn't need to amend the Constitution to ensure that elected leaders comply with the laws of the land. But given the sorry history of congressional leadership by exemption rather than by example, a 28th Amendment doing precisely that makes sense.

This is history. Congress just has a hobby. They'll do what they want.

[Patroklos]

And it continues...

State Department Will Reopen Investigation Into Hillary Clinton Email Usage

...

Although the former secretary of state's closest confidants have left the agency, they could still face punishment. The most serious is the loss of security clearances, which could complicate her aides' hopes of securing top positions on her national security team if she becomes president… Beyond the Democratic front-runner, the probe is will most likely examine confidants Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin — who wrote many of the emails to their boss that the various investigations have focused on. Mills, Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department, has been viewed as a possibility for the same job in the White House. There is speculation that Sullivan, Clinton's former policy chief, could be national security adviser.

...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... usage.html

I was always curious why her underlings seemed to walk on the same water she does. Maybe they won't.

Its also a good point. The primary responsibility for improper handling of classified material rests with the sender, not the receiver. Granted the receiver is required to report this to authorities if they know they received the information improperly but still I would say the primary wrong doing resides with the initiator.

[Terralthra]

Do you have any information to suggest that happened? I have a personal email address too, should it be assumed I sent top secret weapons plans using it just because it exists?

It should be noted that HRC having a server wasn't want prompted all of this. It was a FOIA request for her government account that couldn't be answered because there were suspiciously zero records to fulfill it with. If we find out Gowdy's official email account inbox is empty, feel free to dig. Is there such a smoking gun?

I have his "member of Congress" business card with a fucking gmail account on it. That's clear evidence that he received official emails on a private account. I don't have the contents of his private email account because I don't actually care. The classification system is a massive clusterfuck, with experts estimating that 50%-90% of all classified material doesn't need to be classified at all. I'm sorry that less-exalted political officials and employees have had their careers ended over it, because I have little doubt that at least half of those cases, if not more, are utterly irrelevant and pose little to no threat to the national security apparatus.

My sole concern in this particular matter is over the use of private email for official business, because I think transparency is better than the opposite. Sec. Clinton wasn't particularly transparent because of her use of private email, lack of record-keeping of deleted emails, and incomplete information handover when requested, but she appears to be no worse than anyone else in DC. The second President Bush administration deleted millions of emails regarding the firing of state attorneys rather than turn them over. Multiple GOP representatives apparently keep private email accounts and receive official email on them, as did Gen. Powell and Sec. Rice preceding Sec. Clinton. Sec. Clinton is no worse than any of the other above-the-overzealous-law politicians running the country. However, I don't think she's much better, either, which is why I didn't vote for her.

[Gaidin]

And it continues...

State Department Will Reopen Investigation Into Hillary Clinton Email Usage

...

Although the former secretary of state's closest confidants have left the agency, they could still face punishment. The most serious is the loss of security clearances, which could complicate her aides' hopes of securing top positions on her national security team if she becomes president… Beyond the Democratic front-runner, the probe is will most likely examine confidants Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin — who wrote many of the emails to their boss that the various investigations have focused on. Mills, Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department, has been viewed as a possibility for the same job in the White House. There is speculation that Sullivan, Clinton's former policy chief, could be national security adviser.

...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... usage.html

I was always curious why her underlings seemed to walk on the same water she does. Maybe they won't.

Its also a good point. The primary responsibility for improper handling of classified material rests with the sender, not the receiver. Granted the receiver is required to report this to authorities if they know they received the information improperly but still I would say the primary wrong doing resides with the initiator.

State department had made it clear they were going to wait until the criminal investigation was over. It's over. And then the Justice Department made their statement. So now they continue. Simple enough. Every Executive Department has their methods for handling things that, well, aren't criminally investigative.