November 7, 2016


News and Views


BEFORE YOU READ ANY OF TODAY’S STORIES, FEAST YOUR PROGRESSIVE EYES ON THIS LIST OF SANDERS FANS AND THE RIMAREGAS.COM BLOG. OR, IF YOU DON’T WANT THAT, JUST MOVE ON FARTHER BELOW TO THE REST OF THE NEWS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_ of_Bernie_Sanders_presidential_ campaign_endorsements,_2016

Then go on to:
http://www.rimaregas.com/2016/10/paulryans-berniesanders-nightmare-the-progressive-vote-will-make-it-so-ourrevolution-on-blog42/

ANALYSIS, ECONOMICS
PAUL RYAN’S BERNIE SANDERS NIGHTMARE: THE PROGRESSIVE VOTE WILL MAKE IT SO | #OURREVOLUTION ON BLOG#42
OCTOBER 23, 2016 RIMA

House Speaker Paul Ryan has a terrible nightmare and it isn’t Hillary Clinton:

“If we lose the Senate, do you know who becomes the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee? A guy named Bernie Sanders, you ever heard of him?” Ryan warned. “That’s what we’re dealing with in a divided government if we lose control of the Senate.”

“What vision to Hillary Clinton and her party offer the people? They want an America that doesn’t stand out. They want an America that is ordinary. There is a gloom and grayness to things,” he continued. “In the America they want, the driving force is the state. Where we are ruled by our betters, by a cold and unfeeling democracy that replaces original thinking. A place where the government twists the law and the constitution itself to suit its purposes. It’s a place where liberty is always under assault. Where passion, the very stuff of life is extinguished. That is the America Hillary Clinton wants.”

Ryan is absolutely spot-on in the first snippet quoted above. In a divided Congress in which the Senate returns to a Democratic majority, Bernie Sanders would be in charge of the Budget Committee and negotiations with his Republican counterpart in the House of Representatives. Bernie Sanders is the monster under Paul Ryan’s bed.

While Sanders is known to strive to find common ground with the other side in order to get legislation through, he also is known not to triangulate away core principles. In a Democratic Congress, the significance of Bernie Sanders as Senate Budget Committee chair would mean that progressive policies would finally prevail and core principles would not be eroded, even if they reflect the will of the White House. After the past eight years, this will be not a moment too soon! We’ve all seen Sanders’ dogged resolve over the past year, and the relative success his single-mindedness yielded. The New Republic’s Eric Bates describes Sanders in a new interview:

“He wants to talk about policy, and the nuts and bolts of organizing, and whatever else is needed to bring a greater measure of justice and equality to human affairs. He lives by the Marxist-Calvinist tradition of everything for the cause. He doesn’t have time for roses. Too many people need bread.”

Ryan is correct that Sanders’ ascendence as chair of the Senate budget committee would be the GOP’s nightmare scenario in that negotiations with Democrats will be a lot tougher than in the recent past.

Sanders’ last Democratic predecessor on the Budget Committee, Senator Patty Murray, triangulated away, at the very last minute and in secret, the renewal of unemployment insurance for millions of unemployed older workers who were laid off at the start of the Great Recession. In our nation’s very curious unemployment figure-counting arrangement, these long-term unemployed were dropped from the rolls of the unemployed at the end of 2014 and have not been counted since in the monthly jobs numbers the BLS announces. 2014 and 2015, in California and many other states, mark the beginning of a new wave of homelessness due to both a lack of affordable housing and adequate income.

[SEE BUSH SR/CLINTON Method of counting the unemployed, below this article]

Senator Sanders’ message to his voters:

“I want to see Hillary Clinton become president and the day after that I and the progressive members of Congress, and hopefully millions of other people will say, ‘President-Elect Clinton, here is the Democratic national platform. It is a progressive document. We are going to be introducing legislation piece by piece by piece. On trade. On raising the minimum wage. On making public colleges and universities tuition free. On a Medicare-for-all, single-payer program. On rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure.’”

What’s at stake for progressive voters?

Jobs, trade, and fiscal policy
Higher minimum wage
Racial justice, police and criminal justice reform
Getting the money completely out of politics
Education and student debt
Fracking and the environment
Social safety net
Housing
Foreign and military policy
Immigration
Reforming the Democratic party

The 45% of Democrats who voted for Sanders is made up of upward of 14 million people, including millennials, relatively few of which have resigned themselves to voting Blue in November. A large coterie of Sanders voters seems to have have moved on to the Green party following the DNC convention.

We can also count a sizable portion of Black millennials among those refuseniks. They too, for their own reasons, are disillusioned with the process. Democrats have been very cool to Black Lives Matter. Emails leaked by Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks vindicate at least some of the suspicions of Black voters, where the new movement for civil rights is concerned. In speeches as well as private correspondence, instead of receiving Democrats’ full embrace, BLM is effectively being cut out.

The last three months since the DNC convention feels more like a year and it remains to be seen how many committed Sanders voters remain active in his post-primary organization, Our Revolution, and will continue to take part in it once their votes are cast. From Bates’ piece:

“Now, after laboring for years as a lone voice on the left, Sanders suddenly finds himself speaking for millions. It’s an unexpected role, and not without its pitfalls. Having won twelve million votes in the Democratic primaries—a showing that exposed the deep rift between younger voters and the party establishment—Sanders faces a new challenge: how to continue to pressure the party from the left without tearing it apart in the process.”

Our Revolution is backing one hundred progressive candidates who are running for statewide offices, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Should all or most of the candidates for federal office win, they will be a part of a new, formidable progressive opposition within the Democratic party, led by Senator Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and, assuming he wins back his seat, Russ Feingold, in the Senate. In the House of Representatives, the Progressive Caucus should also see its ranks swell with the addition of candidates such as Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii), Rick Nolan (Minnesota), Zephyr Teachout (NY), Pramila Jayapal (WA), and others, totalling 16 incoming and returning members of Congress. These new potential progressive members would bolster the position of the Progressive Congressional Caucus, headed by Representatives Raul Grijalva (AZ) and Keith Ellison (MN) Should Sanders’ effort to build a progressive coalition succeed, it will boost the Progressive Caucus’ power in very significant ways and will most likely redistribute the internal balance of power within the internal Democratic structure as soon as the new Congress reconvenes.

Eric Bates asked Senator Sanders about Hillary Clinton and her commitment to follow through on positions she pivoted to as a result of his campaign:

“[Bates] You certainly played a major role in pushing Clinton to the left on some key issues, at least in the party’s platform. But many of your supporters don’t believe that Hillary really supports those positions or will make good on those promises. They see it as something she did in the platform to appease the left.

[Sanders] I think that Hillary Clinton is sincere in a number of areas. In other areas I think she is gonna have to be pushed, and that’s fine. That’s called the democratic process.”

This “democratic process” will be especially important – crucial, really – as the outgoing Congress is expected to pass a number of key bills during the lame duck session, to present a set of faits-accomplis for the incoming Clinton administration. The TPP is one bill that progressives fear will be passed right after the election. The Intercept reported on President Obama’s town Hall meeting in Laos, a few weeks back:

“We’re in a political season now and it’s always difficult to get things done,”Obama said at a town hall meeting in Laos. “So after the election, I think people can refocus attention on why this is so important.” He sounded confident: “I believe that we’ll get it done.”

Candidate Hillary Clinton declared her opposition to Keystone XL rather late into the primary process, but then appointed Ken Salazar as her transition team lead immediately following the Democratic convention. In early July, Clinton’s choice of Salazar, a high-profile lobbyist and ardent supporter of the TPP and fracking, threw into question Clinton’s commitment to opposing both issues as promised over the past year. Add to that, the choice of Senator Tim Kaine, who is both an ardent supporter of the TPP and the relaxation of the Dodd-Frank banking regulations that were put in place as a result of the Great Recession.

If Hillary Clinton’s commitment to the progressive stances she adopted were being questioned in July 2016, after WikiLeaks’ revelations in October 2016, we are now certain about Clinton’s dual belief system from private speeches and emails that were leaked. The Obama administration rejected the Keystone pipeline on the recommendation of Secretary of State Kerry in 2015, but that doesn’t mean that a Republican Congress won’t try to pass the legislation in the lame duck or that the White House would necessarily veto such a bill at the last minute. There is ample evidence in the WikiLeaks dumps over the last two months that Hillary Clinton, the private citizen, is a yuuge fan of fracking, which, in the context of her very early choice of Ken Salazar to lead her transition team, points to her acting in ways that contradict her public statements on fracking and the environment or her propensity to roll back any adverse lame duck legislation. We now know so much more about what was in those speeches Hillary Clinton gave Wall Street bankers. Indeed, the New York Times’ David Gelles, in a piece on the newly announced AT&T-Time Warner merger, wrote this:

““Everyone is expecting a Clinton victory,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “She represents the status quo. They think nothing is going to change, and they’re comfortable with that.’”

In a piece entitled “Whether Clinton or Trump, Multinationals Set to Win the Election,” in Bloomberg News, Joseph Ciolli writes:

“Regardless of which candidate wins the U.S. presidential election, domestic companies that stash the most profits overseas will be the victors, according Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

Through the first half of the year, almost $3 trillion in earnings from U.S. multinationals went untaxed because companies chose to permanently reinvest the capital overseas, Goldman strategists led by David Kostin wrote in a recent report. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are keen to tap that revenue stream. So as an enticement, the candidates are expected to cut the tax rate global conglomerates like Apple Inc. and General Electric Co. pay to bring money made overseas back to the U.S. to less than half its current 35 percent, they wrote.”

This should send shivers up the spines of most middle and working class Americans. According to Fox News‘ Nicholas Eberstadt:

“Today some 7 million prime age men are neither working nor looking for work: nearly one in eight.”

Continuing to allow corporations to take their untaxed profits overseas will seal these men’s fates, along with those of millions who lost jobs in 2008-9 and are now a part of the *American Precariat, barely surviving in a depressing gig economy.

NEW SOCIAL CLASS IN AMERICA:
[http://www.rimaregas.com/2015/08/precariat-a-new-social-class-in-americas-new-normal-economics-on-blog42/ --

“Guy Standing, the London School of Economics professor who coined the term “precariat” says this in an interview with The National Catholic Reporter:

Angry supplicants

In a variety of ways — economic, political and cultural — Standing says, “people in the precariat are reduced to being supplicants, supplicants in the sense that they have to ask or satisfy their authority figures; they have to plead, they have to beg.”

“People in the precariat are insecure,” he said. “They’re alienated. They’re anomic,” or socially disoriented, “in the sense that they don’t feel there’s any escape from their circumstances. They’re anxious. Above all, they’re very angry. And this sense of anger is growing all over the world.”

It can be seen in the rise of “outsider” political candidates in the U.S. like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.”


THIS ARTICLE IS TOO LONG TO INCLUDE WHOLE HERE, BUT DO READ IT, ALONG WITH THE OTHER MATERIAL ABOVE ON THE SANDERS MOVEMENT.]

DEFINITION: “AMERICAN PRECARIAT” IS A NEW TERM DESCRIBING THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE JOBLESS OR LIVING ON PART TIME JOBS, SO THAT THEIR LIVES ARE “PRECARIOUS.”

RELATED DEFINITION: “ANOMIC”
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anomic,
an-o-mie, or anomy [an-uh-mee] noun, Sociology.
1. a state or condition of individuals or society characterized by a breakdown or absence of social norms and values, as in the case of uprooted people.]

ON THE SUBJECT OF INSTITUTING A “UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME” SEE ROBERT REICH, ETC.

Moreover, it is known that automation will have a very large impact on the kinds of jobs open to billions of people across the globe. Here, in America, we are not ready for the day when there just aren’t enough jobs to employ most Americans. Robert Reich and many other notable economists have been talking about instituting a “Universal Basic Income.” But is such a progressive notion something that right-of-center Hillary Clinton will even be willing to entertain as a part of laying a foundation for the economy of the future? Probably not without a whole lot of pushing, and not without a hefty amount of leverage.

The WikiLeaks revelations that Democrats so ardently characterize as tainted by Russian interference in U.S. electoral politics are rife with proof for every suspicion voters had of the degree to which a Clinton administration would be beholden to special interests. The Clinton campaign and the DNC spared no effort to write the narrative – not merely control it – in its effort to thwart any insurgent candidacy that might stand in its way. But if voters will it, the progressive fight doesn’t have to be over.

Those same WikiLeaks revelations put a heavy stain on journalism, with many well-known reporters’ unethical contact with Clinton campaign staff having been exposed. In the race to the bottom that now characterizes public trust, even trusted think tanks have had some of the luster taken of their shine. The great Brookings Institution’ relationship with corporate donors was recently the subject of reporting by the New York Times.

The DNC was first to receive a black eye from WikiLeaks. DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz ended up resigning. Donna Brazile was named interim Chair, as the powers that be banked on her golden media reputation. That reputation took several hits, which Brazile was able to bob and weave away from, until this weekend: [VIEW VIDEO.]

There is already talk of several congressional Democrats beginning to vie for the DNC top position. The sitting Democratic president, as head of the party, chooses the DNC Chair. This level of rot has to be excised.

This cycle, especially, it will be up to voters to ensure that future budgets and reforms are as progressive as possible by supporting the candidates of Bernie Sanders’ Our Revolution movement. It must win as many seats as possible in the 2016 election in order to match in power, the resonance of the idea of a “political revolution” gained during the primary season.

Voting Strategies for Progressives

In Black Vote Blank-Out, an article aimed at Black voters, Professors Eddie S. Glaude and Fred Harris wrote:

“2016 AND A NEW STRATEGY

We see one way to loosen the hold Democrats have on the black electorate: for African Americans to become strategic voters. We call it the Blank-Out Campaign.

As both pressure voters and pivotal voters, African Americans can simultaneously deliver a victory for the Democratic nominee in swing states and keep the Democrats’ feet to the fire. Casting ballots as pressure voters would not merely be a symbolic act. Depending on the Blank-Out campaign’s success, it could have consequences for Democratic Party leaders down the line. Lower vote totals for the party’s standard bearer in red states could reduce representation of delegates at the 2020 convention, under formulas the party uses to estimate the number of delegates for each state. How well the party’s presidential nominees performed in the preceding two elections is one factor used to calculate the number of delegates for each state. We think the threat of losing delegate representation should incentivize red-state Democrats—and other Democratic leaders—to prioritize issues that directly affect black communities on the state and federal levels.

But at the symbolic level, the Blank-Out Campaign would announce that African Americans are done with business as usual. Party leaders, black and white, would be served notice that black voters are more than cattle chewing cud, to be herded to the polls every two and four years. So how does it work?”

I submit that the prescription in Glaude and Harris’ very thorough and measured essay applies not only to the audience they aimed for, but all progressive-minded American voters. Hillary Clinton will most likely be elected by a huge margin of voters, including a sizable Republican contingent. The Clinton camp is already talking about winning a mandate. A mandate for what, one might ask? Public sentiment has been to alternate between ignoring WikiLeaks’ revelations, to chanting the mantra that WikiLeaks is a tool of the Russian government, and completely turning a blind eye to the content revealed in the leaks. Whatever else these leaks may be, no one is disputing the authenticity of the leaked emails. Waiting until after the election to deal with the fallout is foolish, if the aim is to prevent the neoliberal power-grab that is currently in the making. The parties are jockeying for power now, setting their plans into motion now.

What is a progressive to do?

As House Speaker Ryan asked, “do you know who becomes the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee?” All progressive-minded Democrats need do is, as Captain Jean-Luc Picard famously used to say, make it so! Making it so means electing every last candidate on Our Revolution’s list, and following the advice given in Professors Glaude and Harris’ excellent essay.

There will be many who will hesitate to blank-out, based on fears that sending a message may have unintended consequences. To be clear, Our Revolution supports progressives. All of them are Democrats. In addition, for voters who know that their candidates are right of center liberals, there is one more option to consider. Professor Glaude, again, with some very nuanced analysis for progressives:

“EDDIE GLAUDE: Well, I think we agree on principle. And part of what I think—where we agree is that we have to keep Trump out of office. And the question for me is that: How do we do that? And one of the ways I’m thinking we need to do it is to vote strategically. And that is, in those places where we can, for me, blank out or vote for Jill Stein, we should. And in those places where—the battleground states, where it matters, where Trump has a chance to win, I think we need to turn out in massive numbers and make sure that he doesn’t win those states. I think we have to do two things simultaneously.

And I think he’s right in this regard: I think that what we’ve seen and what we’ve witnessed in this moment is the bankruptcy of a particular economic ideological philosophy that has left so many—so many people behind. And I think we need to dare to imagine a new world. But I think it’s going to require strategic and tactical thinking. And I think, on its face, Chris and I aren’t disagreeing. I just think there are ways to get to the same—to the same end.”

One must not discount the possibility that at least some of the candidates put forth by the Green Party will win their elections. There are Green candidates on the ballots in twenty states and, according to BallotPedia, the party is supporting five U.S. Senate candidates and 26 congressional candidates. It would make sense that any successful Green candidates would most naturally ally themselves with progressives in Congress, especially if the Democrats are unable to retake the House of Representatives or come up three to four seats short.

Whatever one believes about the way things turned out in this election cycle – whether the Clinton-Trump face-off is some sort of behind the scenes plot designed to force voters to choose Clinton or some other conspiracy theory – one thing is clear, all is not lost for those who worked hard to elect Senator Bernie Sanders, only to be infuriated at the lies and deception that went on, not only behind the scenes at the DNC, but also in the collusion of the media with the Clinton campaign.

Voting strategically doesn’t require the effort of coordination. All that is needed is for disillusioned voters not to give into their disgust and disengage, but show up en-masse at the polls and vote progressive.

The system was designed for both parties to control the electoral process. The parties were designed for their respective establishments to maintain dominance. The GOP went completely off the rails in the aftermath of the 2008 election. The Democratic party has been under the control of right of center forces since the 1990’s. Though he came out of the blue, Senator Sanders represented a clear and present danger to the neoliberal establishment and, were it not for mainstream corporate media collusion, Sanders might well have won. We can all still hand him a win. As James Madison most famously wrote:

“This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

– Federalist Papers, No. 58, 1788

As Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Bernie Sanders will have the power over the purse.


sanders on Twitter
https://twitter.com/search/sanders
Rating temporarily unavailable. We are working to restore service. No user action is necessary Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders)
2 hours ago - View on Twitter
Don't just go vote. Drag your friends out to vote. The future of the planet is at stake. iwillvote.com



EXCERPT: “And I think he’s right in this regard: I think that what we’ve seen and what we’ve witnessed in this moment is the bankruptcy of a particular economic ideological philosophy that has left so many—so many people behind. And I think we need to dare to imagine a new world. But I think it’s going to require strategic and tactical thinking.”


Progressives in this country include OurRevolution, the Green Party, and some Independents such as Sanders. Bill Maher and Michael Moore are also of the same type, though Maher does not claim the Democratic Party. He is, by all the statements I have ever heard him say, a liberal at the very least, and this year he spoke STRONGLY in favor of Sanders. I think he’s just an honest and decent man who doesn’t fit neatly into any box at all. So many of us these days are exactly like that. We are together in an army, which until the last few years was invisible, before Sanders stood forth and spoke his views boldly. Miraculously, followers including myself, emerged on the Net and in person wherever he appeared to speak. Voila! A Movement!

Those of us who are committed to Sanders’ way of viewing life and citizenship, need to band together by means of the Internet and in person, speaking our views with courage and straightforward honesty to create a much more open societal environment than we have seen in recent years. In the 1960-75 period when I was young, things were much looser than now socially, and more idealistic. It was an era which we can reclaim by speaking up for it again as we did then.

We were united then by the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Act and the Women’s Movement. After that we didn’t really have any “causes” left, except for those who became professionally associated with poverty and justice issues based on race or other excluding characteristics. Now we have LGBT and BLM, the Homeless problem, mental health issues, etc. to pursue as a group, and now the useless and debilitating poverty of most inner-city areas begs to be addressed by new laws. I am in favor of one or more Amendments to the Constitution, which will require the support of groups in all states of the union, and therefore more organization, activism and cohesion than we have at this time. We are, after all, in our infancy.

Our Internet “umbrella” should cover all of those areas to form a new democratic society on the ashes of the old, and especially stressing the indecent income/social class gaps that plague our country. The conflict between Blacks and Whites is not merely a phenomenon of the Police Departments, but of our society as a whole.

That and the equally dangerous cultural and educational gaps leading to hatred (look at the statistics of how many Americans actually have a college degree as compared to European countries.) We do now have the Internet, the greatest communication network that the world has seen to this time. I suggest we form an umbrella network using FACEBOOK and websites as the heinous KKK and others like them have already done. We could call it something catchy like THE COMMITTEES OF CORRESPONDENCE, named after the early American patriots’ basic loose organization before the Revolution through which the American colonies became a NATION.



GOOD NEWS:


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/doj-to-deploy-poll-watchers-to-jurisdictions-in-28-states-on-tuesday/

DOJ to deploy poll-watchers to 28 states on Tuesday
By REBECCA SHABAD CBS NEWS
November 7, 2016, 10:00 AM

Photograph -- Voters cast their ballots during early voting at the Franklin County Board of Elections in Columbus, Ohio U.S., October 28, 2016. REUTERS/SHANNON STAPLETON


The Justice Department announced Monday that it is deploying more than 500 people to 67 different jurisdictions Tuesday to monitor polls during the general election.

The personnel are from the department’s civil rights division and they are deploying to jurisdictions in 28 states to help enforce the federal voting rights laws that protect voters’ access to ballots on Election Day.

“As always, our personnel will perform these duties impartially, with one goal in mind: to see to it that every eligible voter can participate in our elections to the full extent that federal law provides,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement. “The department is deeply committed to the fair and unbiased application of our voting rights laws and we will work tirelessly to ensure that every eligible person that wants to do so is able to cast a ballot.”

The department said its poll-watchers will gather information on whether voters are “subject to different voting qualifications or procedures on the basis of race, color or membership in a language minority groups.” The personnel will also see whether jurisdictions allow voters who are blind, have a disability or who can’t read or write can receive assistance or the ability to cast a private and independent ballot.

Some of the deployed personnel, the department said, speak Spanish as well as a number of Asian and Native American languages.

This comes as Donald Trump tells his supporters to act as poll-watchers on Election Day because of possible voter fraud and as Democrats accuse Trump and the GOP of engaging in voter intimidation in several states.

Poll monitors will also look to see that jurisdictions comply with the National Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act’s provisional ballot requirements.

The Justice Department dispatches poll watchers for every election. In 2012, the Justice Department sent 780 monitors to 23 states, but DOJ officials warned in October that there would actually be fewer trained election observers this year because of the Supreme Court opinion that invalidated a key part of the Voting Rights Act.

The department is deploying monitors to the following 67 jurisdictions:

Bethel Census Area, Alaska;

Dillingham Census Area, Alaska;

Kusilvak Census Area, Alaska;

Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area, Alaska;

Maricopa County, Arizona;

Navajo County, Arizona;

Alameda County, California;

Napa County, California;

Siskiyou County, California;

East Hartford, Connecticut;

Farmington, Connecticut;

Hartford, Connecticut;

Middletown, Connecticut;

New Britain, Connecticut;

Newington, Connecticut;

West Hartford, Connecticut;

Hillsborough County, Florida;

Lee County, Florida;

Miami-Dade County, Florida;

Orange County, Florida;

Palm Beach County, Florida;

Fulton County, Georgia;

Gwinnett County, Georgia;

Hancock County, Georgia;

Chicago, Illinois;

Cook County, Illinois;

Finney County, Kansas;

Orleans Parish, Louisiana;

Quincy, Massachusetts;

Dearborn Heights, Michigan;

Detroit, Michigan;

Hamtramck, Michigan;

St. Louis, Missouri;

Douglas County, Nebraska;

Mineral County, Nevada;

Washoe County, Nevada;

Middlesex County, New Jersey;

Cibola County, New Mexico;

Kings County, New York;

Orange County, New York;

Queens County, New York;

Cumberland County, North Carolina;

Forsyth County, North Carolina;

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina;

Robeson County, North Carolina;

Wake County, North Carolina;

Benson County, North Dakota;

Rolette County, North Dakota;

Cuyahoga County, Ohio;

Franklin County, Ohio;

Hamilton County, Ohio;

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania;

Lehigh County, Pennsylvania;

Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania;

Pawtucket, Rhode Island;

Providence, Rhode Island;

Bennett County, South Dakota;

Jackson County, South Dakota;

Oglala Lakota County; South Dakota;

Shelby County, Tennessee;

Dallas County, Texas;

Harris County, Texas;

Waller County, Texas;

San Juan County, Utah;

Fairfax County, Virginia;

Prince William County, Virginia, and

Milwaukee, Wisconsin.




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-fbi-might-have-processed-650000-emails-hillary-clinton-investigation/

How the FBI might have processed 650,000 emails in Clinton probe
By REBECCA SHABAD CBS NEWS
November 7, 2016, 9:17 AM


Donald Trump and his aides are expressing skepticism at how quickly the FBI was able to review hundreds of thousands of emails in the latest probe in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

The FBI revealed Sunday that it had found nothing new in the emails from top Clinton aide Huma Abedin that were found on the laptop belonging to her estranged husband, Anthony Weiner. In a letter to lawmakers on Capitol Hill, Comey said he was not changing his recommendation from July that no charges should be brought against Clinton.

During a rally Sunday, however, Trump said it’s not possible that the FBI was able to review so many emails in just nine days.

“You can’t review 650,000 new emails in eight days,” He continued. “You can’t do it, folks.”

A report from Wired, however, said that Trump is wrong and that the FBI can review that amount in just a week, if not sooner.

“This is not rocket science,” Jonathan Zdziarski, a forensics expert who’s consulted for law enforcement, told Wired. “Eight days is more than enough time to pull this off in a responsible way.”

The technology news outlet also interviewed an anonymous former FBI forensics experts who said the agent reviewed larger collections of data even faster than the current case.

“You can triage a dataset like this in a much shorter amount of time,” the agent told Wired, according to the report. “We’d routinely collect terabytes of data in a search. I’d know what was important before I left the guy’s house.”

The former agent also said that the FBI has tools that can sift out classified documents, which the agent said is similar to software used to detect plagiarism.

Both sources told Wired that investigations can filter out emails by targeting “to” and “from” as well as filtering out duplicates.

The review of the emails found in the new batch found that most were duplicates, CBS News confirmed Sunday.

“The Department of Justice and the FBI dedicated all necessary resources to conduct this review expeditiously,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement.

Even NSA leaker Edward Snowden proposed his own method on Twitter of sifting through such a large batch after a journalism professor asked him how it could be done.

16h
Jeff Jarvis ✔ @jeffjarvis
Hey @Snowden, for context, how long would it take the NSA to dedupe 650k emails?
Follow

Edward Snowden ✔ @Snowden
@jeffjarvis Drop non-responsive To:/CC:/BCC:, hash both sets, then subtract those that match. Old laptops could do it in minutes-to-hours.
8:19 PM - 6 Nov 2016
2,085 2,085 Retweets 2,920 2,920 likes

© 2016 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comment Share Tweet Stumble Email

Rebecca Shabad
Rebecca Shabad is a video reporter for CBS News Digital.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-stocks-surge-after-fbi-clears-clinton/

U.S. stocks surge after FBI clears Clinton
CBS/AP
November 7, 2016, 1:29 PM

Play VIDEO -- How will the FBI's decision impact the election?


NEW YORK - Stocks are surging on Wall Street, breaking a nine-day losing streak, after the FBI said newly discovered emails didn’t warrant any action against presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

The Dow Jones industrial average jumped 340 points, or 1.9 percent, to 18,228 as of 1:13 p.m. Eastern time. The S&P 500 index gained 42 points, or 2 percent, to 2,128 in midday trading. The Nasdaq composite jumped 116 points, or 2.3 percent, to 5,163.

Investors have been anxious in recent weeks over signs that the U.S. presidential race was tightening. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index is coming off its longest losing streak since 1980. Monday’s surge erased more than half of those losses.

Banks and health care companies rose more than the rest of the market. UnitedHealth and JPMorgan Chase led the Dow higher.

Clinton got a boost late Sunday, when FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers that a review of new emails from the Democratic candidate did not change the bureau’s recommendation that she should not face charges.

The market fell on Oct. 28 after the FBI notified Congress that it was reviewing newly discovered emails linked to Clinton, who is seen by Wall Street as likely to maintain the status quo. Donald Trump’s policies are less clear, and the uncertainty and uncomfortable closeness of the polls caused jitters in financial markets ahead of Tuesday’s general election.

The VIX, a measure of how much volatility investors expect to see in the market over the next 30 days, slumped 17.5 percent Monday after surging 40 percent last week to its highest level since June, when Britain voted to leave the European Union.

The slide in the VIX reflected less anxiety among investors. Safe haven investments also slumped as investors felt comfortable taking on more risk. Bond prices fell, driving the yield on the 10-year Treasury note up to 1.82 percent from 1.78 percent late Friday, while the price of gold fell $23.60, or 1.8 percent, to $1,281 an ounce. Utilities and phone stocks, two other havens investors seek when they expect turmoil, lagged the market.

U.S. benchmark crude oil was up 25 cents, or 0.6 percent, at $44.32 a barrel in New York. The price of oil is coming off a six-day losing streak. Brent crude, which is used to price international oils, was up 6 cents at $45.64 a barrel in London.

The dollar strengthened across the board. It was up to 104.57 yen from 103.13 on Friday. The dollar was down 2.2 percent to 18.61 Mexican pesos from 19.03 pesos. The Mexican currency has become an indirect proxy among investors for Trump’s chances to win the White House. Investors have speculated that a Trump administration would be negative for the Mexican economy, and would cause the Mexican peso’s value to fall as a result.



HERE HE GOES AGAIN WITH HIS ANTISEMITIC IMAGERY. DOESN’T HE LEARN FROM EXPERIENCE?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-campaign-fires-back-adl-blasts-anti-semitic-imagery-trump-ad/
By REENA FLORES CBS NEWS
November 6, 2016, 5:10 PM

Photograph -- Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump attends a campaign event in Wilmington, Ohio, November 4, 2016. REUTERS/CARLO ALLEGRI


After the Anti-Defamation League criticized the latest Donald Trump campaign ad for using anti-Semitic imagery, the Trump campaign hit back at the civil rights group, accusing it of trying to find bigotry in the wrong places.

“The ADL should focus on real anti-Semitism and hatred, and not try to find any where none exist,” wrote the campaign’s Jason Greenblatt in a statement to CBS News. “I am offended and concerned that an institution such as the ADL would involve itself in partisan politics instead of focusing on its important mission.”

The ad by the Trump campaign, first released Friday, has already garnered over 1.5 million views on YouTube. It showcases Trump’s closing “argument for America,” and uses imagery of the Federal Reserve seal, Wall Street, and piles of cash while painting a dark portrait of “elite” control of the U.S.

“The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake,” Trump’s voice says in the ad. “For those who control the levers of power in Washington and for the global special interests — they partner with these people that don’t have your good in mind.”

“That have bled our country dry,” he continues in the ad. For examples of the powerful elites, the ad cuts together video clips of billionaire George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen and Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein — all of whom are Jewish.

The ad didn’t escape the ADL’s notice.

Early Sunday, the anti-hate group released a statement on Twitter from their CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, stating that “[w]hether intentional or not, the images and rhetoric in this ad touch on subjects that anti-Semites have used for ages.”

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter
Follow
ADL ✔ @ADL_National
Our thoughts on the #Trump closing ad.
10:40 AM - 6 Nov 2016
1,712 1,712 Retweets 1,554 1,554 likes

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minnesota, also leveled sharp criticisms at the ad on Sunday.

“When I saw the ad, I thought that this was something of a German shepherd whistle, a dog-whistle, to a certain group in the United States,” Franken, who is Jewish, said on CNN Sunday, slamming its appeal to Trump’s “alt-right base.”

“Maybe I’m sensitive to it, but it clearly had sort of Elders of Zion kind of feel to it, international banking crisis... uh, plot, or conspiracy rather, and then a number of Jews,” Franken added.

The Trump campaign’s own Greenblatt, who serves as a vice president and chief legal officer of the Trump Organization and is also the co-chair for the campaign’s Israel advisory committee, went on to defend the GOP nominee and his campaign’s advertising as adamantly pro-Jewish.

“Mr. Trump’s message and all of the behavior that I have witnessed over the two decades that I have known him have consistently been pro-Jewish and pro-Israel and accusations otherwise are completely off-base,” Greenblatt said. “The suggestion that the ad is anything else is completely false and uncalled for.”

Trump’s campaign has been criticized repeatedly for its connections — whether intentional or not — to anti-Semitism during the 2016 election.

Trump’s campaign CEO, Stephen Bannon, who previously ran the alt-right Breitbart news site, was accused of making anti-Semitic remarks in court documents. And earlier this year, Trump tweeted out what appeared to be a Star of David in a graphic criticizing Hillary Clinton.



I WILL BE SO HAPPY WHEN THIS ELECTION IS OVER AND HILLARY CLINTON IS THE PRESIDENT ELECT! MAKE IT SO!