Tornado Alley (PROG)

[SilverSurfer]

shtsqsh, right, right, reading and listening to a variety of sources is a path to "smarten up"... to do otherwise is bad judgment... which, smart or not,,, gives the same or worse results than being "dumb"....

Why did such a smart, seasoned public servant exercise such bad judgment? For the same reason she has in the past: Because she walls herself off from alternative points of view.

In the journalistic reconstructions of Clinton’s decision, two things become clear. First, State Department security experts strongly opposed it. As the Washington Post’s Robert O’Harrow Jr. reported in a terrific piece in March, “State Department security officials were distressed about the possibility that Clinton’s BlackBerry could be compromised and used for eavesdropping.” Soon after Clinton became Secretary of State, they expressed that distress in a February 2009 meeting with Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, a longtime Clinton loyalist. In a March memo to Clinton herself, Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Eric Boswell wrote that, “I cannot stress too strongly … that any unclassified Blackberry is highly vulnerable.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/email-hillary-clinton/484634/


New Clinton Ad Is More Anti-Hillary Than Anti-Trump
While it might be fair to say that Trump is a scumbag for proudly voicing and admitting to being an opportunist post-crisis, the real cause of the crisis were Clinton’s close pals.


The real perpetrators were the banks who caused the crisis. If you’ve seen (or read) “The Big Short” you know that is what investors do - they take advantage of the market. What the banks did, by comparison, was to short the market while advising clients to bet in the other direction — causing unions, hedge funds, pension funds, and the like to get slammed. It was a Ponzi scheme.


The companies responsible for this have agreed to pay huge settlements while taking no direct responsibility for any of the wrongdoing — even though they have been accused of using fraudulent documents to kick people to the curb, among other things. Companies like Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JP Morgan Chase.


One of those names, Goldman Sachs, should stand out among the rest as the Wall Street behemoth that has paid Clinton $675,000 for three speeches - a subject of debate and contention with Senator Sanders and his supporters. The other companies equally large are, along with Goldman Sachs, among Clinton’s top six donors, having contributed in the neighborhood of $800,000 each to her campaign. Apparently, Wall Street wasn’t threatened significantly enough by Hillary’s admonition to “cut it out” when she went down there to keep them from throwing money at her.


None of this is a big secret, nor is it some vague insider information. It’s a topic that I and many others have written about for years after the crisis. It does beg the question, though, as to whether the Clinton campaign is smug enough to think that we’re that stupid or that we’ve forgotten. And why would she give Trump enough ammunition to very credibly prove her hypocrisy?


Tony Trupiano

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-zombeck/new-clinton-ad-is-more-an_b_10163002.html