2016 Election
The answer about signing in is not clear in the rules published online. But since you were posting about the caucuses with clear authoritativeness, it seemed as if you might respond to a simple query. Seeing that such is not the case, it will cast another pall over certain statements.Quote: ams288Google it.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe answer about signing in is not clear in the rules published online. But since you were posting about the caucuses with clear authoritativeness, it seemed as if you might respond to a simple query. Seeing that such is not the case, it will cast another pall over certain statements.
It is clear that ID is not required to vote in Iowa. Nice try though.
Nice tactic!!
Quote: ThatDonGuyTrue, there's the cost of housing and books, but I wouldn't be surprised if those suddenly skyrocket to the point where Sanders says that these need to be free as well, as otherwise it defeats the purpose of "free education."
Which college doesn't have a library that lets you use books without buying them?
Quote: TomGWhich college doesn't have a library that lets you use books without buying them?
Are you talking about regular books or textbooks?
I've never heard of a college student going to the library for a textbook that is required for a course.
The college textbook industry is a huge scam, IMO. The authors update a few words every year or so to keep new editions coming out so the prices stay high.
Quote: ams288It is clear that ID is not required to vote in Iowa. Nice try though.
So please explain how they determined the caucus goers were in fact from Iowa?
Or is it fair to assume people from all over the country participated last night? Or do you believe in the honesty of people and surely no one would try something like this with so much at stake?
Hope you get another laugh, since I seem to amuse you.
Quote: RonCSo the Cruz folks thought, and said publicly, that Carson was getting out of the race because he decided to fly home for a few hours and get some different clothes? Sometimes a person just wants to sleep in their own bed for a few minutes...it is a long campaign and time at home is scares...
It wasn't just that; they added that Carson "was not going to New Hampshire" because, after Florida, he was headed to DC for the National Prayer Breakfast.
Quote: ams288It is clear that ID is not required to vote in Iowa. Nice try though.
My IA friend says he had to show ID, which
was checked with their registered voter list.
No ID, no voting.
Quote: EvenBobMy IA friend says he had to show ID, which
was checked with their registered voter list.
No ID, no voting.
Weird.
My IA friend says that you've been posting on this board since 2010.
Never know who you can believe, these days.
Quote: ams288Weird.
My IA friend says that you've been posting on this board since 2010.
Never know who you can believe, these days.
I wish we'd hear from the investigators on this posting issue.
One person with a certain name claims he made every one of 19.000 posts,
another one assured us of a Romney win in 2012,
yet another says he didn't start posting until 2013,
and I am just wondering what will be said next.
Quote: RonCI wish we'd hear from the investigators on this posting issue.
They'll get to it as soon as they're done
with investigating Hillary's emails.
Quote: MichaelBluejayWhy do you even post? Do you think anyone actually takes you seriously?
This is not fair to EB. President Romney takes him seriously......
Quote: TwirdmanMore research showing that voter ID laws do affect minority turnout at higher rates than it affects white turn out http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/02/3745296/major-voter-id-study/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link or http://www.mediaite.com/online/study-shows-that-republican-backed-voter-id-laws-are-really-working-for-them/ .
More victimization of minorities by liberals. Just feeding their ego that they are better than these people who can't make it without their help. All they have to do to better their lives is vote Democrat.
Seeing as how my still-unanswered question was about signing in, it appears that certain requirements are in effect for at least one party's caucus. It doesn't seem to matter so much for the other party, the one where they toss coins for the most important public office on this planet. One does have to have proof of party registration for at least one caucus:Quote: EvenBobMy IA friend says he had to show ID, which was checked with their registered voter list. No ID, no voting.
“In order to participate in the upcoming Republican caucus, you must be a registered Republican and at least 18 years old by the 2016 general election, held on November 8th. . . .If you are not a registered Republican, you can contact your county auditor to register immediately, and will also have the option of same-day voter registration at the caucus location.” iowagop
The UCSD study cited in the Mediate article does not do what Mediate claims it does. For starters, it states that 99 percent of Americans have proper ID's. Second, as the ultimately honest researchers point out, no hard numbers are available to measure the effects of voter ID on elections. What they have done is to construct models to come up with Predicitions, which are clearly labeled as such. ucsdQuote: BozMore victimization of minorities by liberals.
Quote:Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified.
As expected, he's a sore loser.
Is this the beginning of him pretending to be treated "unfairly" so he can float a third party run?
Quote: ams288
Is this the beginning of him pretending to be treated "unfairly" so he can float a third party run?
If he does not get the Republican nomination, and opts to guarantee a Democrat victory, he will run as an independent. He would have plenty of ammunition to play the 'unfair' card. It is not the beginning. He has alluded to it in the past.
I don't think you have stated your opinion yet.... ams... If you could pick the President, would you pick Sanders or Clinton? Just wondering how far left you are!
Quote: SOOPOOI don't think you have stated your opinion yet.... ams... If you could pick the President, would you pick Sanders or Clinton? Just wondering how far left you are!
I honestly don't have a strong preference between the two of them. I'd be happy with either.
My choice is whichever one could win easiest come November. And I've seen compelling arguments for both candidates, in that regard.
Quote: ams288I honestly don't have a strong preference between the two of them. I'd be happy with either.
My choice is whichever one could win easiest come November. And I've seen compelling arguments for both candidates, in that regard.
I do think Hillary will pull the general out based on offering more but it will be more of the same unless the Dems can get the house back ( unlikely). Meanwhile those who work hard and make the right decisions instead of the easy ones will succeed and thrive, as always. And the rest will complain about obstruction and continue to play the victim card.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThe UCSD study cited in the Mediate article does not do what Mediate claims it does. For starters, it states that 99 percent of Americans have proper ID's. Second, as the ultimately honest researchers point out, no hard numbers are available to measure the effects of voter ID on elections. What they have done is to construct models to come up with Predicitions, which are clearly labeled as such. ucsd
I'd point out that the 1% is a number argued by proponents of the law and I don't think they necessarily conclusive agree with that number. They state later in the paper that research has shown that the number may be as low as 1% but could also be as high as 11% given currently available research. The more important fact is these numbers are not evenly distributed amongst all populations. Specifically while whites are more likely to have IDs for a variety of reasons, including living in suburbs necessitating commuting to work necessitating a drivers licence, African Americans may have as high as a 20% without an ID given currently available research.
Also while they did construct models it is not as though they are baseless. They do have hard data on turn out. Specifically they even say their data comes from CCES. From that hard data they built a regression model. Obviously you cannot get the exact numbers since how would you. You cannot know whether a person didn't vote specifically because of voter ID laws. What you can do is look at how voting trends have changed in states with those laws and use that to try and predict what the effect of the law was. This is literally what basically all research in most fields. There are a few fields like pure math not based on making predictive models but they are not the norm.
Quote: SOOPOOIf you could pick the President, would you pick Sanders or Clinton? Just wondering how far left you are!
Sometimes the best revenge is giving someone exactly what they desire.
Feel the Bern.
Quote: Face
Feel the Bern.
I don't understand the Sanders thing. He has
zero chance of being nominated. He wants
the gov't to give everything away for free
and quadruple our taxes to pay for it. Plus,
he's an old man, he looks even older than
Bill Clinton, who looks OLD.
Quote: EvenBobI don't understand the Sanders thing. He has
zero chance of being nominated. He wants
the gov't to give everything away for free
and quadruple our taxes to pay for it. Plus,
he's an old man, he looks even older than
Bill Clinton, who looks old
Yeah, but who doesn't want to be governed by Larry David? It's worth a shot for the LOLs alone.
Plus, he's either wildly successful or destroys the country. One is good for us all, the other is good for my coup (which is also good for us all).
Him or Trump. Clinton would be so awfully dreary
Quote: Face
Plus, he's either wildly successful or destroys the country.
Recipients of SNAP or EBT's, TANF, Welfare, Medicaid and the like all are supposed to have valid ID.Quote: TwirdmanSpecifically while whites are more likely to have IDs for a variety of reasons, including living in suburbs necessitating commuting to work necessitating a drivers licence, African Americans may have as high as a 20% without an ID given currently available research.
Quote: EvenBobI don't understand the Sanders thing. He has zero chance of being nominated. He wants
the gov't to give everything away for free and quadruple our taxes to pay for it.
We're coming to the end of eight years with a President exactly like that and I'm doing better than ever, while those who are struggling are mostly all doing so because of their own choices, not anything the President has done.
http://deadline.com/2016/02/megyn-kelly-fox-news-11-million-dollar-memoir-deal-harper-collins-donald-trump-1201696747/
Seems like she sure did come out on top in her scuffle with Trump...
at rally's all the time and today he used the F
word. You just don't do that, he's so out of
touch it's hard to believe. They all use that
language in private, but the general public
won't stand for it. I think Rubio has a good
chance of winning NH or coming in 2nd,
close to Trump. Donald is turning into a
loose canon, god knows what he would do
as president. At least he ruined Bush, that's
a win to me.
Quote: EvenBobI don't understand the Sanders thing. He has zero chance of being nominated. He wants the gov't to give everything away for free and quadruple our taxes to pay for it.
You might want to look at people who see him as a good idea. Start with the people who have six-figure student loan bills. Add the parents of high school kids who face the same prospect. Remember, they don't care what the schools actually charge, since, as far as they are concerned, the increases will be paid for by people who make more money than they ever will, plus some tax on stock trades that doesn't really bother them as they're not stock market traders (and don't notice that the tax would eat away at their 401(k)s the same way that a 1% house advantage at a table in Las Vegas eventually results in pretty much all of the money ending up in the casino's hands).
What I want to see is, the backup plan if he gets elected but the Republicans still manage to hold onto at least one house of Congress.
have been bleeping out were Trump
used the F word. Bush and his mom say
they're appalled. Cruz says Trump has
lost touch with reality.
Turns out, Trump never said the word, there
is nothing to bleep. Trump left the word
out. This deception by the press
will bite him, wait and see.
Quote: EvenBobOn all 3 cable news channels all day, they
have been bleeping out were Trump
used the F word. Bush and his mom say
they're appalled. Cruz says Trump has
lost touch with reality.
Turns out, Trump never said the word, there
is nothing to bleep. Trump left the word
out. This deception by the press
will bite him, wait and see.
Sounded like he said it quietly. Lip reading, no doubt a F-bomb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZQQGkGvOCA
Search youtube "Trump f-bomb"
The guy is not shy about dropping f-bombs
Guy probably drops them left and right privately,
but on the flip side,
who doesn't when they are mad :-)
Quote: terapinedSounded like he said it quietly. Lip reading, no doubt a F-bomb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZQQGkGvOCA
Search youtube "Trump f-bomb"
The guy is not shy about dropping f-bombs
That's not a bleep, that's the way he said
it. He mouthed the word, he never said
the word.
pics of the candidates to people. Trump and Clinton
were the only ones they got right 100% of the time.
Bush, Sanders, Cruz, and the rest, most of them
didn't know what they looked like.
Quote: terapinedSounded like he said it quietly. Lip reading, no doubt a F-bomb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZQQGkGvOCA
He definitely mouthed it. But he didn't say it.
They wouldn't be able to show that on network TV without blurring and beeping his mouth because of FCC standards.
I'm not sure why the cable news channels bleeped it though, as they aren't held to the same standards as network channels.
Quote: ams288He definitely mouthed it. But he didn't say it.
They wouldn't be able to show that on network TV without blurring and beeping his mouth because of FCC standards.
I'm not sure why the cable news channels bleeped it though, as they aren't held to the same standards as network channels.
If this was Huckabee, yea it might get some traction. Guy probably doesn't even drop em in private
With Trump
much ado about nothing.
mouthing the word is just toying with the press which is what Trump does
Quote: terapinedIf this was Huckabee, yea it might get some traction. Guy probably doesn't even drop em in private
With Trump
much ado about nothing.
mouthing the word is just toying with the press which is what Trump does
Yeah I don't think it's a big deal either coming from Trump.
It'd be interesting to see the coverage Hillary would get if she did something similar.... lol
Quote: ThatDonGuyYou might want to look at people who see him as a good idea. .
I'm not sure if people think the Democrats as a whole just go along with any idea a possible candidate on their side may suggest, but I can say for sure I'm going to balk at proposals I consider unfeasible regardless of what I'd like to see done.
Much as Republicans should balk at an extreme tax reduction proposal, even though they favor tax reductions in general.
She may yet win the nomination and even the election...but she can't campaign nearly as well as Bill did. I don't know of many that can. That means it may be harder for her to establish her anti-establishment position... She's been the wife of a Governor and a President, a Senator, and Secretary of State...those aren't exactly the credentials of an "outsider"... Fun to watch; we'll see how it ends up.
Trump? Well, I refuse to make a big deal out of what has happened lately because I've already been wrong enough about his candidacy. I don't want to go out on some limb and end up abandoning ship for months and then claiming that those posts were written before I got here...I'll just sit and watch the Clown Prince of Candidates do what he does. Perhaps it all ends with Trump Air Force One...
Cruz? Well, old Teddy had folks declare Carson's campaign over when he just went home for some new underwear. They are pinning their actions on the word "suspended" because that word describes what everyone does when they get out of the race; apparently, if they just quit they can't keep raising money for the campaign. So he "suspended" campaigning for 12 hours or so and some shenanigans took place.
Bush decided to be a Bush. Not sure if that can help him at this point.
I'm enjoying all of this...
Quote: RonCHillary is in classic Clinton mode....
There's a "black swan" on both Democratic and Republican side. (think that fits.)
Clinton would do fine against 2 or 3 O'Malleys "standard issue" candidate. But Bernie is a black swan.
Trump has been the black swan on the Republican side.
And Obama was a black swan.
Hey, that's a lot of black swans. Well anyway, it's just a theory.
my probable misuse of black swan theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
Quote: RonC
Cruz? Well, old Teddy had folks declare Carson's campaign over when he just went home for some new underwear. They are pinning their actions on the word "suspended" because that word describes what everyone does when they get out of the race; apparently, if they just quit they can't keep raising money for the campaign. So he "suspended" campaigning for 12 hours or so and some shenanigans took place.
I'm enjoying all of this...
The Cruz move was very sleazy. Not illegal. But I am not a believer of "all is fair in politics". It WAS a sleazy move and doubly so in the primary season when you do something like that against candidates from your own party. I think it might just light a fire under Carson to stay in the race longer than he otherwise might, especially through South Carolina, where Cruz has a chance to win again and every vote Carson gets, he probably takes from Cruz.
This move by Cruz and the people working for him is exactly why the caucus system, with the candidates representatives having too much access and influence with the voters is a bad idea. States opt for caucuses because they are cheaper than holding a primary. But, we are the United States of America, defender of democracy. Costing costs of the process of electing our top leader should not be the top priority.
But....I too am enjoying it all. :)
Quote: ams288Yeah I don't think it's a big deal either coming from Trump.
It'd be interesting to see the coverage Hillary would get if she did something similar.... lol
It would only be in the context of "Who did Bill f this time?"
Quote: kewljThe Cruz move was very sleazy. Not illegal. But I am not a believer of "all is fair in politics". It WAS a sleazy move and doubly so in the primary season when you do something like that against candidates from your own party. I think it might just light a fire under Carson to stay in the race longer than he otherwise might, especially through South Carolina, where Cruz has a chance to win again and every vote Carson gets, he probably takes from Cruz.
This move by Cruz and the people working for him is exactly why the caucus system, with the candidates representatives having too much access and influence with the voters is a bad idea. States opt for caucuses because they are cheaper than holding a primary. But, we are the United States of America, defender of democracy. Costing costs of the process of electing our top leader should not be the top priority.
But....I too am enjoying it all. :)
I think dirty political tricks like this would hurt "non-establishment" candidates more than "establishment" ones. Here you are running against the "system", and you do the very thing everyone expects of the "system." I think it is a bad look and one that Cruz did not damage control particularly well. There are going to be operatives who do things the candidate does not direct during the election cycle. How you handle those situations is a window into how you may operate if you win the office.
I doubt Carson can hurt too much, though I think that is a valid point--it is just that money dries up so fast when you are falling that people end up out of the race very quickly.
Hillary's "email problem" isn't going away, either, and that has to be a part of Bernie's rise. I guess he could make it a bigger part by attacking, but maybe the attacks would not do as much as just mentioning "email problem" every once in awhile. The Republicans attacked Hillary vigorously in the 2008 cycle; did those attacks help Barack Obama become President? I think they did.
I don't know if there is good spin for Hillary to use because it is an ongoing investigation. The supporters here will say "heck, it is nothing, just like everything else that she has ever been accused of"...and maybe some of it WAS actually nothing. The underlying reality in cases where someone is accused of many things is very often that there is something dirty down there underneath all the back and forth. Everyone seems to forget that cyber security is a target that has moved through the years, so what predecessors did may not have been "right" but they also may not have done anything "wrong"--trying to blame it on others before her is just a typical political trick--"look he's a scumbag and that means I can be a scumbag"...
I do think the story has taken place over a lot longer period of time than it could have had she fully cooperated. Liberals will say she was just letting the case work through the system to prove there was nothing there; Conservatives will say it is an attempt to avoid prosecution and win the nomination. I guess none of us will know (although I am sure some here will claim to know!) what is going to happen until the FBI and Justice come out on it. If the FBI recommends prosecution, Justice will get hammered if they do not do so. If nothing comes of the investigation, the Republican side will still harp on it. There is a "trust" issue, however you look at it.
Is that enough to propel Bernie to the nomination or will Biden step in? Will Hillary prevail?
Exciting on both sides...and I am still not sure who I like!
Quote: RonCI don't know if there is good spin for Hillary to use because it is an ongoing investigation. The supporters here will say "heck, it is nothing, just like everything else that she has ever been accused of"...and maybe some of it WAS actually nothing. The underlying reality in cases where someone is accused of many things is very often that there is something dirty down there underneath all the back and forth. Everyone seems to forget that cyber security is a target that has moved through the years, so what predecessors did may not have been "right" but they also may not have done anything "wrong"--trying to blame it on others before her is just a typical political trick--"look he's a scumbag and that means I can be a scumbag"...
I think what she's trying to say without saying it is she didn't know jack-all about email protocols, security concerns, and classifications back then. The State Dept, like the FAA (my agency under Dept of Trans) is filled with lifers and bookshelves full of regulations and procedures, have their way of doing things, are very slow to change, while hackers and spies are nimble and fast-moving, always ahead of the game by definition. She followed the advice and habits of what was there, then, without giving it another thought; stuff that was developed under Rice and Powell, and their predecessors. Tell me she knew anything more than trying to type on a blackberry back then; it was all people under her and possibly a private advisor setting her up with accounts and access to stuff IAW procedures of the time, developed under previous SoS's. She just wanted her comms simple and knew nothing of the details; expected her staff to worry about that (honestly, as she or any other Senior Exec Svc (SES) does).
Sounds like the stuff that was retroactively classified was all email chains that reached her from discussions of others, not stuff she generated. She hasn't handled the inquiries well, in part because it's been made into a much bigger deal than she (and the State Dept) thought it was at first. She also hasn't handled it well because she doesn't (and wasn't expected to at the time) know the nuts and bolts of security handling.
Not excusing her actions or events cuz I don't know enough about the content or how Dept of State worked (each Dept has its own protocols under the larger umbrella of the Executive requirements) , but having been up there for a couple years and also working classified stuff for decades, this is not unusual or even surprising, that an in-depth review of anybody's email would have things not to be made public, let alone the top of the agency.
Something else they haven't gotten into, probably because there's no stickiness (blame) to it, is that most (the VAST majority) of the classified stuff she DID receive/send was not sent thru emails. It's handled with in-person briefings, secure phone lines, non-copyable/scannable papers, sign-in/sign-out briefs, other ways, and there is significance in that no violations of that sort have come to light in her several years of SoS.
Quote: rxwineI'm not sure if people think the Democrats as a whole just go along with any idea a possible candidate on their side may suggest, but I can say for sure I'm going to balk at proposals I consider unfeasible regardless of what I'd like to see done.
You and I both know that there is pretty much zero chance of any of Sanders's promises making it out of Congress. (Then again, I probably said the same thing about Obamacare eight years ago.) Try explaining that to the twenty-somethings with the six-figure student loans. I would not be one bit surprised if, should Sanders win the nomination, his campaign - especially in late October - becomes, "A vote for me, and your Democratic candidates for House and Senate, means a chance for you to get out of debt. Not voting means you'll be dragging that six-figure anchor for years to come."
People - especially poor ones - have believed in pipe dreams to solve their problems for years. That's why the lottery is usually called "a tax on the poor."
Quote: ThatDonGuyYou and I both know that there is pretty much zero chance of any of Sanders's promises making it out of Congress. (Then again, I probably said the same thing about Obamacare eight years ago.) Try explaining that to the twenty-somethings with the six-figure student loans. I would not be one bit surprised if, should Sanders win the nomination, his campaign - especially in late October - becomes, "A vote for me, and your Democratic candidates for House and Senate, means a chance for you to get out of debt. Not voting means you'll be dragging that six-figure anchor for years to come."
Huh???????????
Lets say Sanders becomes President
If some students or students families have taken out massive loans for an IVY league school
So be it
That is not going to change. That's a loan that needs to be paid back
If you have massive loans because you went to a real good private school
Those loans remain and you still have to pay them back.
If Sanders becomes President, Not much will change trying to go to expensive private Institutions
Expensive private colleges will remain expensive private colleges where students may have to take out a loan.
Sanders free education is in regards to public Institutions. Public schools up to high school are free and fully subsudized. Public Universities are partially subsidized. He will fully subsidize them
Private schools such as Yale will remain expensive and students still may have to take out a loan. That will not change.
Quote: beachbumbabsSomething else they haven't gotten into, probably because there's no stickiness (blame) to it, is that most (the VAST majority) of the classified stuff she DID receive/send was not sent thru emails. It's handled with in-person briefings, secure phone lines, non-copyable/scannable papers, sign-in/sign-out briefs, other ways, and there is significance in that no violations of that sort have come to light in her several years of SoS.
It isn't easy to see why she can't use what you've written about above to bolster her case for taken care of classified info; it would be like saying "hey, look...90% of the classified stuff I handled was handled correctly." I don't know if she personally should be prosecuted but I do think someone should held accountable be for the mishandling of classified information. If it is a "careerist" that didn't want to change with the times and told her it was okay to have a private server, so be it. Things change over time and we learn more about security every day. It is ignorant to have anyone responsible for information security that does not know that. She isn't off the hook completely even if it falls on someone else--the boss is responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen.
If a U. S. Navy ship runs aground, even while the Captain is sleeping, the Captain often ends up fired. Responsibility. It is something a lot of people don't like to take; they just want the title.
Quote: RonCIt isn't easy to see why she can't use what you've written about above to bolster her case for taken care of classified info; it would be like saying "hey, look...90% of the classified stuff I handled was handled correctly." I don't know if she personally should be prosecuted but I do think someone should held accountable be for the mishandling of classified information. If it is a "careerist" that didn't want to change with the times and told her it was okay to have a private server, so be it. Things change over time and we learn more about security every day. It is ignorant to have anyone responsible for information security that does not know that. She isn't off the hook completely even if it falls on someone else--the boss is responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen.
If a U. S. Navy ship runs aground, even while the Captain is sleeping, the Captain often ends up fired. Responsibility. It is something a lot of people don't like to take; they just want the title.
Why is Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice given a free pass from conservatives and Clinton does not?
Politics
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/colin-powell-condoleezza-rice-staffers-handled-emails-deemed/story?id=36718280
No other Cabinet secretary has ever had a private server to handle all e-mail messages, including official government business.Quote: beachbumbabsShe followed the advice and habits of what was there, then, without giving it another thought; stuff that was developed under Rice and Powell, and their predecessors.
It does not matter where the secret material was going to or coming from. What matters is that classified material, whether marked or not (and there is evidence that the markings were sometimes removed) was on unsecure equipment like a computer in the bathroom of an apartment in Denver.Quote:Sounds like the stuff that was retroactively classified was all email chains that reached her from discussions of others, not stuff she generated.
I don't know whether you had to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement, but Clinton definitely did have to. On Jan. 22, 2009, she signed an NDA, where she agreed to protect highly classified information, and a failure to do so could result in criminal prosecution.Quote:Not excusing her actions or events cuz I don't know enough about the content or how Dept of State worked (each Dept has its own protocols under the larger umbrella of the Executive requirements) , but having been up there for a couple years and also working classified stuff for decades, this is not unusual or even surprising, that an in-depth review of anybody's email would have things not to be made public, let alone the top of the agency.
"I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in my termination of my access to SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) and removal from a position of special confidence," the NDA reads. "I have been advised that any authorized disclosure of SCI by me may constitute violations of United States criminal laws, including provisions of Sections 793, 794, 798 and 952, Title 18 United States Code."
