@PolhomeEditor: Alex Salmond: "We're closer to independence than we've ever been." #LBC
Well, that is still true even if independence is at some infinite point in the future....
This is a very interesting concept. I'm glad you raised it. Can you ever be nearer to an infinite point in either time or space or spacetime?
So you want to tell Mr Salmond that his journey towards infinity is futile gesture politics?
Is it not possible to break him in gently with the concept of infinity minus 1?
Mr Salmond cannot grasp the modest limits to the price of oil, so I suspect the infinite nature of the the whole space time continuum is beyond his ken.
I do have to say though that discussions on the wondrous nature of the very existence of existence itself are much more satisfying than some of the more coarse discourse we slip into from time to time.
Andrew Neil @afneil 27s28 seconds ago Intelligence officials find emails on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private computer server reckoned higher than “top secret"
Don't think that HIlary will like this news to break out.
I fail to see how they are going to real get much more traction out of this. They have been digging and digging and digging for so long - and not harm has been shown to have been done.
If it has taken 'intelligence officials' this long to find this, they really aren't that good at their job.
Who is 'they'? The media, the GOP? The intelligence community and the FBI will be handling this case carefully, given what a hot political potato it is. The fact that they are not releasing stuff does not mean that they are not doing anything or even not finding anything.
The FBI have 100 full time officers and 50 part-time on the case. As RCP notes, they would not dedicate that amount of resources for this long if the early leads were all dead ends. As we know from FIFA, they don't show their hand until they are ready.
RCP, right of centre but definitely analytical rather than ideological, seems to think that the case will either die or be very serious.
Andrew Neil @afneil 27s28 seconds ago Intelligence officials find emails on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private computer server reckoned higher than “top secret"
Don't think that HIlary will like this news to break out.
I fail to see how they are going to real get much more traction out of this. They have been digging and digging and digging for so long - and not harm has been shown to have been done.
If it has taken 'intelligence officials' this long to find this, they really aren't that good at their job.
Who is 'they'? The media, the GOP? The intelligence community and the FBI will be handling this case carefully, given what a hot political potato it is. The fact that they are not releasing stuff does not mean that they are not doing anything or even not finding anything.
The FBI have 100 full time officers and 50 part-time on the case. As RCP notes, they would not dedicate that amount of resources for this long if the early leads were all dead ends. As we know from FIFA, they don't show their hand until they are ready.
RCP, right of centre but definitely analytical rather than ideological, seems to think that the case will either die or be very serious.
This case is really not that complicated. Clinton has not been SoS for the best part of 4 years now. During the years she was SoS she seems to have stupidly sent secure e-mails to a private server which did not have the security provided for government servers. There is no evidence of any actual damage being caused by this or any security breach but there might have been and it may be a technical offence was committed.
What the hell 100 officers are doing "investigating" this is simply beyond me. I really would have thought it could have been cleared up by an IT specialist in a not particularly busy afternoon.
It reeks of politics in a way that an FBI investigation should be wary of and the closer we get to the election the more the smell grows.
My life has been very sheltered, so I might be completely wrong, but I thought the effect of poppers was, err, muscular, rather than psycho-active. So why would this bill apply to them?
They make you feel slightly light headed and increase heart rate briefly.
Like coffee?
No. More like laxatives, but it does remarkable (good) things to one's anus, when you add in where a man's g spot is, it is a rather enjoyable experience.
I'm not speaking from experience. I was offered them but declined. You don't put diesel in a Ferrari
Is this site turning into some Dear Deidry place? Or is it going to return to its main purpose? But if you want to continue then the sad fact is that there is no G-Spot. Proven by medical science so if you can find it you are wholly remarkable. To argue against myself of course I would suggest that Corbyn has found the Labour Party's G-Spot. What its correct anthropological name letter or location is I would not like to suggest.
We are discussing a subject discussed in The Commons today.
Andrew Neil @afneil 27s28 seconds ago Intelligence officials find emails on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private computer server reckoned higher than “top secret"
Don't think that HIlary will like this news to break out.
I fail to see how they are going to real get much more traction out of this. They have been digging and digging and digging for so long - and not harm has been shown to have been done.
If it has taken 'intelligence officials' this long to find this, they really aren't that good at their job.
Who is 'they'? The media, the GOP? The intelligence community and the FBI will be handling this case carefully, given what a hot political potato it is. The fact that they are not releasing stuff does not mean that they are not doing anything or even not finding anything.
The FBI have 100 full time officers and 50 part-time on the case. As RCP notes, they would not dedicate that amount of resources for this long if the early leads were all dead ends. As we know from FIFA, they don't show their hand until they are ready.
RCP, right of centre but definitely analytical rather than ideological, seems to think that the case will either die or be very serious.
This case is really not that complicated. Clinton has not been SoS for the best part of 4 years now. During those years she seems to have stupidly sent secure e-mails to a private server which did not have the security provided for government servers. There is no evidence of any actual damage being caused by this or any security breach but there might have been and it may be a technical offence was committed.
What the hell 100 officers are doing "investigating" this is simply beyond me. I really would have thought it could have been cleared up by an IT specialist in a not particularly busy afternoon.
It reeks of politics in a way that an FBI investigation should be wary of and the closer we get to the election the more the smell grows.
But if there had been a leak.... I'd have thought the government would come down like a ton of bricks on anyone mishandling sensitive data.
Andrew Neil @afneil 27s28 seconds ago Intelligence officials find emails on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private computer server reckoned higher than “top secret"
Don't think that HIlary will like this news to break out.
I fail to see how they are going to real get much more traction out of this. They have been digging and digging and digging for so long - and not harm has been shown to have been done.
If it has taken 'intelligence officials' this long to find this, they really aren't that good at their job.
Who is 'they'? The media, the GOP? The intelligence community and the FBI will be handling this case carefully, given what a hot political potato it is. The fact that they are not releasing stuff does not mean that they are not doing anything or even not finding anything.
The FBI have 100 full time officers and 50 part-time on the case. As RCP notes, they would not dedicate that amount of resources for this long if the early leads were all dead ends. As we know from FIFA, they don't show their hand until they are ready.
RCP, right of centre but definitely analytical rather than ideological, seems to think that the case will either die or be very serious.
This case is really not that complicated. Clinton has not been SoS for the best part of 4 years now. During those years she seems to have stupidly sent secure e-mails to a private server which did not have the security provided for government servers. There is no evidence of any actual damage being caused by this or any security breach but there might have been and it may be a technical offence was committed.
What the hell 100 officers are doing "investigating" this is simply beyond me. I really would have thought it could have been cleared up by an IT specialist in a not particularly busy afternoon.
It reeks of politics in a way that an FBI investigation should be wary of and the closer we get to the election the more the smell grows.
But if there had been a leak.... I'd have thought the government would come down like a ton of bricks on anyone mishandling sensitive data.
Oh yes. I am not excusing her, it was an incredibly stupid thing to do. It is just not complicated.
The pound has gained lost about 8% against the Euro since November.
Sorry I'm on the other side of this by proxy, £ gaining to 1.4 was pretty horrendous in 2015.
It's partly a correction, though, isn't it? The £ rose against the Euro before November to the point that I started renegotiating translation contracts. Must admit I'm not trying to renegotiate them back again now :-)
You dirty capitalist, you!
How can speculating on the FX rate be acceptable in the pure Corbyn-Labour Party?
My life has been very sheltered, so I might be completely wrong, but I thought the effect of poppers was, err, muscular, rather than psycho-active. So why would this bill apply to them?
They make you feel slightly light headed and increase heart rate briefly.
Like coffee?
No. More like laxatives, but it does remarkable (good) things to one's anus, when you add in where a man's g spot is, it is a rather enjoyable experience.
I'm not speaking from experience. I was offered them but declined. You don't put diesel in a Ferrari
Is this site turning into some Dear Deidry place? Or is it going to return to its main purpose? But if you want to continue then the sad fact is that there is no G-Spot. Proven by medical science so if you can find it you are wholly remarkable. To argue against myself of course I would suggest that Corbyn has found the Labour Party's G-Spot. What its correct anthropological name letter or location is I would not like to suggest.
We are discussing a subject discussed in The Commons today.
Bloody relevant to PB.
PMQs too boring to talk about then?
Not everyone may have seen PMQ's Did anything out of the ordinary happen during it?
My life has been very sheltered, so I might be completely wrong, but I thought the effect of poppers was, err, muscular, rather than psycho-active. So why would this bill apply to them?
They make you feel slightly light headed and increase heart rate briefly.
Like coffee?
No. More like laxatives, but it does remarkable (good) things to one's anus, when you add in where a man's g spot is, it is a rather enjoyable experience.
I'm not speaking from experience. I was offered them but declined. You don't put diesel in a Ferrari
Is this site turning into some Dear Deidry place? Or is it going to return to its main purpose? But if you want to continue then the sad fact is that there is no G-Spot. Proven by medical science so if you can find it you are wholly remarkable. To argue against myself of course I would suggest that Corbyn has found the Labour Party's G-Spot. What its correct anthropological name letter or location is I would not like to suggest.
We are discussing a subject discussed in The Commons today.
Bloody relevant to PB.
PMQs too boring to talk about then?
Haven't watched PMQs yet.
I was wondering what to write for Sunday. Now I'm doing a thread on poppers.
WBUR poll to be released tomorrow suggests Kasich-mentum in NH may be real.
Great news for Trump layers.
How
If Trump crashes and burns in the first few primaries/caucuses then I'm not going to the poorhouse
Kasich's numbers are almost zero in South Carolina, he is nowhere in Iowa. I'm on him but realistically he can't win. What he does is most likely wreck Rubio in New Hampshire. Which is good for Trump.
I know but I need some straws to grasp.
I am still sitting on the fence on all this because with so many players competing in a smaller number of channels (populist, right, Establishment) for a larger number of audiences (the GOP 5-ring tent), under a new set of primary rules that we have not seen play out in the past, I don't see how anyone can model it with confidence.
Are Cruz and Trump the evident front runners at the moment? Yes Will either of them ever be enthusiastically endorsed (vs holding noses) by 50+% of the GOP. No Is Rubio the Prince Regent of the Establishment? Currently Is that position cemented in? No Could Kasich come second in NH with over 20%? Yes Could the anyone but Cruz or Trump (ABCOT) camp decide he's the one given Bush is shot, Kasich beat Christie in NH and Rubio has not seized the crown? Yes Is it likely? Not really.
Do I know what is going to happen? No. Is anyone better than evens? No. Not even The Donald.
WBUR poll to be released tomorrow suggests Kasich-mentum in NH may be real.
Great news for Trump layers.
How
If Trump crashes and burns in the first few primaries/caucuses then I'm not going to the poorhouse
Kasich's numbers are almost zero in South Carolina, he is nowhere in Iowa. I'm on him but realistically he can't win. What he does is most likely wreck Rubio in New Hampshire. Which is good for Trump.
I know but I need some straws to grasp.
I am still sitting on the fence on all this because with so many players competing in a smaller number of channels (populist, right, Establishment) for a larger number of audiences (the GOP 5-ring tent), under a new set of primary rules that we have not seen play out in the past, I don't see how anyone can model it with confidence.
Are Cruz and Trump the evident front runners at the moment? Yes Will either of them ever be enthusiastically endorsed (vs holding noses) by 50+% of the GOP. No Is Rubio the Prince Regent of the Establishment? Currently Is that position cemented in? No Could Kasich come second in NH with over 20%? Yes Could the anyone but Cruz or Trump (ABCOT) camp decide he's the one given Bush is shot, Kasich beat Christie in NH and Rubio has not seized the crown? Yes Is it likely? Not really.
Do I know what is going to happen? No. Is anyone better than evens? No. Not even The Donald.
My life has been very sheltered, so I might be completely wrong, but I thought the effect of poppers was, err, muscular, rather than psycho-active. So why would this bill apply to them?
They make you feel slightly light headed and increase heart rate briefly.
Like coffee?
No. More like laxatives, but it does remarkable (good) things to one's anus, when you add in where a man's g spot is, it is a rather enjoyable experience.
I'm not speaking from experience. I was offered them but declined. You don't put diesel in a Ferrari
Is this site turning into some Dear Deidry place? Or is it going to return to its main purpose? But if you want to continue then the sad fact is that there is no G-Spot. Proven by medical science so if you can find it you are wholly remarkable. To argue against myself of course I would suggest that Corbyn has found the Labour Party's G-Spot. What its correct anthropological name letter or location is I would not like to suggest.
We are discussing a subject discussed in The Commons today.
Bloody relevant to PB.
PMQs too boring to talk about then?
Haven't watched PMQs yet.
I was wondering what to write for Sunday. Now I'm doing a thread on poppers.
Who is 'they'? The media, the GOP? The intelligence community and the FBI will be handling this case carefully, given what a hot political potato it is. The fact that they are not releasing stuff does not mean that they are not doing anything or even not finding anything.
The FBI have 100 full time officers and 50 part-time on the case. As RCP notes, they would not dedicate that amount of resources for this long if the early leads were all dead ends. As we know from FIFA, they don't show their hand until they are ready.
RCP, right of centre but definitely analytical rather than ideological, seems to think that the case will either die or be very serious.
This case is really not that complicated. Clinton has not been SoS for the best part of 4 years now. During those years she seems to have stupidly sent secure e-mails to a private server which did not have the security provided for government servers. There is no evidence of any actual damage being caused by this or any security breach but there might have been and it may be a technical offence was committed.
What the hell 100 officers are doing "investigating" this is simply beyond me. I really would have thought it could have been cleared up by an IT specialist in a not particularly busy afternoon.
It reeks of politics in a way that an FBI investigation should be wary of and the closer we get to the election the more the smell grows.
But if there had been a leak.... I'd have thought the government would come down like a ton of bricks on anyone mishandling sensitive data.
Given the vast arrays of silliness available to the entire body politic of America and which that entire body invariably and regularly succumbs to without favour to race creed colour sex or political allegiance, I think this particular example must rank as fairly unexceptional. Did you not take on board the salient points raised in the previous comment? Just what if anything has happened? The use of this server is ancient history and well known to the US authorities. The FBI have been blind to some very real breaches of US security, so maybe we can understand their willingness to talk up bogus leaks. I find it pathetic that the Democrat Party cannot find a better candidate than Hillary BTW.
This case is really not that complicated. Clinton has not been SoS for the best part of 4 years now. During the years she was SoS she seems to have stupidly sent secure e-mails to a private server which did not have the security provided for government servers. There is no evidence of any actual damage being caused by this or any security breach but there might have been and it may be a technical offence was committed.
What the hell 100 officers are doing "investigating" this is simply beyond me. I really would have thought it could have been cleared up by an IT specialist in a not particularly busy afternoon.
It reeks of politics in a way that an FBI investigation should be wary of and the closer we get to the election the more the smell grows.
Sandy Berger and General Petraeus were indicted and found guilty for far less. So, if the evidence clearly shows that Hillary broke the law - damage or no damage - some questions:
Is there one law for Hillary, and another for everyone else? Should the application of the law be modified because of the election cycle? Do we want a President who made the conscious decision to be cavalier with classified information at the highest levels over a prolonged period simply in order to shield herself from FOIA requests? Do we want a President who considers herself above the law?
These should not be partisan questions, although the last two certainly will be used in a partisan fashion.
Who is 'they'? The media, the GOP? The intelligence community and the FBI will be handling this case carefully, given what a hot political potato it is. The fact that they are not releasing stuff does not mean that they are not doing anything or even not finding anything.
The FBI have 100 full time officers and 50 part-time on the case. As RCP notes, they would not dedicate that amount of resources for this long if the early leads were all dead ends. As we know from FIFA, they don't show their hand until they are ready.
RCP, right of centre but definitely analytical rather than ideological, seems to think that the case will either die or be very serious.
This case is really not that complicated. Clinton has not been SoS for the best part of 4 years now. During those years she seems to have stupidly sent secure e-mails to a private server which did not have the security provided for government servers. There is no evidence of any actual damage being caused by this or any security breach but there might have been and it may be a technical offence was committed.
What the hell 100 officers are doing "investigating" this is simply beyond me. I really would have thought it could have been cleared up by an IT specialist in a not particularly busy afternoon.
It reeks of politics in a way that an FBI investigation should be wary of and the closer we get to the election the more the smell grows.
But if there had been a leak.... I'd have thought the government would come down like a ton of bricks on anyone mishandling sensitive data.
Given the vast arrays of silliness available to the entire body politic of America and which that entire body invariably and regularly succumbs to without favour to race creed colour sex or political allegiance, I think this particular example must rank as fairly unexceptional. Did you not take on board the salient points raised in the previous comment? Just what if anything has happened? The use of this server is ancient history and well known to the US authorities. The FBI have been blind to some very real breaches of US security, so maybe we can understand their willingness to talk up bogus leaks. I find it pathetic that the Democrat Party cannot find a better candidate than Hillary BTW.
What does it matter that the server wasn't used after her time as Secretary of State? I'm pretty sure there isn't a statute of limitations on such crimes (and if there was, it wouldn't be four years).
Corbyn will avoid any good news and just read e mails from Bill and Ben, and any other flowerpot men he comes across.. Little Weed if he is desperate,.... Its a joke.
My life has been very sheltered, so I might be completely wrong, but I thought the effect of poppers was, err, muscular, rather than psycho-active. So why would this bill apply to them?
They make you feel slightly light headed and increase heart rate briefly.
Like coffee?
No. More like laxatives, but it does remarkable (good) things to one's anus, when you add in where a man's g spot is, it is a rather enjoyable experience.
I'm not speaking from experience. I was offered them but declined. You don't put diesel in a Ferrari
Is this site turning into some Dear Deidry place? Or is it going to return to its main purpose? But if you want to continue then the sad fact is that there is no G-Spot. Proven by medical science so if you can find it you are wholly remarkable. To argue against myself of course I would suggest that Corbyn has found the Labour Party's G-Spot. What its correct anthropological name letter or location is I would not like to suggest.
We are discussing a subject discussed in The Commons today.
Bloody relevant to PB.
PMQs too boring to talk about then?
Haven't watched PMQs yet.
I was wondering what to write for Sunday. Now I'm doing a thread on poppers.
This case is really not that complicated. Clinton has not been SoS for the best part of 4 years now. During the years she was SoS she seems to have stupidly sent secure e-mails to a private server which did not have the security provided for government servers. There is no evidence of any actual damage being caused by this or any security breach but there might have been and it may be a technical offence was committed.
What the hell 100 officers are doing "investigating" this is simply beyond me. I really would have thought it could have been cleared up by an IT specialist in a not particularly busy afternoon.
It reeks of politics in a way that an FBI investigation should be wary of and the closer we get to the election the more the smell grows.
Sandy Berger and General Petraeus were indicted and found guilty for far less. So, if the evidence clearly shows that Hillary broke the law - damage or no damage - some questions:
Is there one law for Hillary, and another for everyone else? Should the application of the law be modified because of the election cycle? Do we want a President who made the conscious decision to be cavalier with classified information at the highest levels over a prolonged period simply in order to shield herself from FOIA requests? Do we want a President who considers herself above the law?
These should not be partisan questions, although the last two certainly will be used in a partisan fashion.
1. No, of course not. But the same is also true in reverse. This has been supposedly being investigated for the best part of a year now and the facts must surely have been instantly ascertainable once the server was recovered. 2. The FBI should be careful not to interfere with the democratic process if possible. So if they are going to indict her they should get on with it and not wait until she is the nominated candidate of the Democratic party undermining that party's democratic process. 3. That is a question for the American people. It is not clever, I will give you that. 4. No, but you surely also don't want people to be denied the chance to vote for the first female American President because someone won't get off the pot and prefers to keep what looks like a smear going.
They should indict or drop and they really need to do this before Iowa. 6 months ago would have been better still.
1. No, of course not. But the same is also true in reverse. This has been supposedly being investigated for the best part of a year now and the facts must surely have been instantly ascertainable once the server was recovered. 2. The FBI should be careful not to interfere with the democratic process if possible. So if they are going to indict her they should get on with it and not wait until she is the nominated candidate of the Democratic party undermining that party's democratic process. 3. That is a question for the American people. It is not clever, I will give you that. 4. No, but you surely also don't want people to be denied the chance to vote for the first female American President because someone won't get off the pot and prefers to keep what looks like a smear going.
They should indict or drop and they really need to do this before Iowa. 6 months ago would have been better still.
I'd agree with all that. But the FBI move at their own, very deliberate pace.
Part of the delay is that the decision on what is classified and its classification level is decided by the originator of the information. Thus all these emails had to be sorted by origin, sent to those origins, the information reviewed and that process/result reviewed at least one more time at the point of origin, the findings sent to the FBI for collation, and then further painstaking interviewing of the principals involved.
Not justifying the deathly slow pace, just explaining it. And the fact that it is such a political hot potato will have slowed down the whole process, with everyone taking meticulous care that they are playing to the letter of the book.
Assuming it would be unwise for me to google it at work, what on earth are "poppers"??
Actually, not sure I want to know...
Alkyl nitrites - originally came as small glass capsules that were popped open, hence the name.
They dilate the blood vessels and allow more blood to get to the heart. Poppers are sniffed from the bottle with immediate effects which fade after a couple of minutes.
I'd agree with all that. But the FBI move at their own, very deliberate pace.
Part of the delay is that the decision on what is classified and its classification level is decided by the originator of the information. Thus all these emails had to be sorted by origin, sent to those origins, the information reviewed and that process/result reviewed at least one more time at the point of origin, the findings sent to the FBI for collation, and then further painstaking interviewing of the principals involved.
Not justifying the deathly slow pace, just explaining it. And the fact that it is such a political hot potato will have slowed down the whole process, with everyone taking meticulous care that they are playing to the letter of the book.
Really? The security level of the e-mails is determined with the benefit of hindsight? That seems odd. Surely the sender would have had to fix the level at the time he sent it. Would it not determine who could receive it and what encryption was to be used?
As I say the FBI are in danger of damaging themselves with this procrastination and if Clinton is guilty of a serious offence people are entitled to know before they vote.
I'd agree with all that. But the FBI move at their own, very deliberate pace.
Part of the delay is that the decision on what is classified and its classification level is decided by the originator of the information. Thus all these emails had to be sorted by origin, sent to those origins, the information reviewed and that process/result reviewed at least one more time at the point of origin, the findings sent to the FBI for collation, and then further painstaking interviewing of the principals involved.
Not justifying the deathly slow pace, just explaining it. And the fact that it is such a political hot potato will have slowed down the whole process, with everyone taking meticulous care that they are playing to the letter of the book.
Really? The security level of the e-mails is determined with the benefit of hindsight? That seems odd. Surely the sender would have had to fix the level at the time he sent it. Would it not determine who could receive it and what encryption was to be used?
As I say the FBI are in danger of damaging themselves with this procrastination and if Clinton is guilty of a serious offence people are entitled to know before they vote.
Seems unreasonable. If I receive something that I think is non-confidential, can I be sued N years later if the author says "On reflection, I think it was secret"? Surely not.
I'd agree with all that. But the FBI move at their own, very deliberate pace.
Part of the delay is that the decision on what is classified and its classification level is decided by the originator of the information. Thus all these emails had to be sorted by origin, sent to those origins, the information reviewed and that process/result reviewed at least one more time at the point of origin, the findings sent to the FBI for collation, and then further painstaking interviewing of the principals involved.
Not justifying the deathly slow pace, just explaining it. And the fact that it is such a political hot potato will have slowed down the whole process, with everyone taking meticulous care that they are playing to the letter of the book.
Really? The security level of the e-mails is determined with the benefit of hindsight? That seems odd. Surely the sender would have had to fix the level at the time he sent it. Would it not determine who could receive it and what encryption was to be used?
As I say the FBI are in danger of damaging themselves with this procrastination and if Clinton is guilty of a serious offence people are entitled to know before they vote.
The security level is fixed at the time of sending. One of the potentially most damaging emails has Clinton instructing someone to remove classification headings and send it over unsecure communications to her unsecure server.
For such communications, stripped of the original headers, classification would have to be reasserted by the originator.
Similar to the UK, although I think we would stick with whatever was the original classification at the time of sending, unless there is clearly a reason to change the level (which would nearly always be in the direction of downgrading the level).
PS The US process makes more sense when another agency (e.g. State) has taken material from one or more other agencies (CIA, NSA, DIA) to write its own analysis/synopsis, and then given that a lower level of classification than the original information held. In that case, I can see the originators of the information insisting on an upgrade of classification.
I'd agree with all that. But the FBI move at their own, very deliberate pace.
Part of the delay is that the decision on what is classified and its classification level is decided by the originator of the information. Thus all these emails had to be sorted by origin, sent to those origins, the information reviewed and that process/result reviewed at least one more time at the point of origin, the findings sent to the FBI for collation, and then further painstaking interviewing of the principals involved.
Not justifying the deathly slow pace, just explaining it. And the fact that it is such a political hot potato will have slowed down the whole process, with everyone taking meticulous care that they are playing to the letter of the book.
Really? The security level of the e-mails is determined with the benefit of hindsight? That seems odd. Surely the sender would have had to fix the level at the time he sent it. Would it not determine who could receive it and what encryption was to be used?
As I say the FBI are in danger of damaging themselves with this procrastination and if Clinton is guilty of a serious offence people are entitled to know before they vote.
Seems unreasonable. If I receive something that I think is non-confidential, can I be sued N years later if the author says "On reflection, I think it was secret"? Surely not.
Not sued Nick, prosecuted for a breach of national security.
It just seems absurd. OTOH if e-mails marked top secret have been sent to a private non secure server for the reasons Tim said, basically to hide what she was really saying from freedom of information requests, that should be pretty clear too.
My life has been very sheltered, so I might be completely wrong, but I thought the effect of poppers was, err, muscular, rather than psycho-active. So why would this bill apply to them?
They make you feel slightly light headed and increase heart rate briefly.
Like coffee?
No. More like laxatives, but it does remarkable (good) things to one's anus, when you add in where a man's g spot is, it is a rather enjoyable experience.
I'm not speaking from experience. I was offered them but declined. You don't put diesel in a Ferrari
Is this site turning into some Dear Deidry place? Or is it going to return to its main purpose? But if you want to continue then the sad fact is that there is no G-Spot. Proven by medical science so if you can find it you are wholly remarkable. To argue against myself of course I would suggest that Corbyn has found the Labour Party's G-Spot. What its correct anthropological name letter or location is I would not like to suggest.
We are discussing a subject discussed in The Commons today.
Bloody relevant to PB.
PMQs too boring to talk about then?
Haven't watched PMQs yet.
I was wondering what to write for Sunday. Now I'm doing a thread on poppers.
Really? Careful you are in danger of matching your topic. ''effects which fade after a couple of minutes.''
Really? The security level of the e-mails is determined with the benefit of hindsight? That seems odd. Surely the sender would have had to fix the level at the time he sent it. Would it not determine who could receive it and what encryption was to be used?
As I say the FBI are in danger of damaging themselves with this procrastination and if Clinton is guilty of a serious offence people are entitled to know before they vote.
The security level is fixed at the time of sending. One of the potentially most damaging emails has Clinton instructing someone to remove classification headings and send it over unsecure communications to her unsecure server.
For such communications, stripped of the original headers, classification would have to be reasserted by the originator.
Similar to the UK, although I think we would stick with whatever was the original classification at the time of sending, unless there is clearly a reason to change the level (which would nearly always be in the direction of downgrading the level).
PS The US process makes more sense when another agency (e.g. State) has taken material from one or more other agencies (CIA, NSA, DIA) to write its own analysis/synopsis, and then given that a lower level of classification than the original information held. In that case, I can see the originators of the information insisting on an upgrade of classification.
Would that not again just be a question of looking what classification was removed?
I don't really see how someone who sent something "top secret" can, after the fact, say, "well it wasn't that secret after all." If it is sent to her as "top secret" that is the way she should surely treat it.
Really? The security level of the e-mails is determined with the benefit of hindsight? That seems odd. Surely the sender would have had to fix the level at the time he sent it. Would it not determine who could receive it and what encryption was to be used?
As I say the FBI are in danger of damaging themselves with this procrastination and if Clinton is guilty of a serious offence people are entitled to know before they vote.
The security level is fixed at the time of sending. One of the potentially most damaging emails has Clinton instructing someone to remove classification headings and send it over unsecure communications to her unsecure server.
For such communications, stripped of the original headers, classification would have to be reasserted by the originator.
Similar to the UK, although I think we would stick with whatever was the original classification at the time of sending, unless there is clearly a reason to change the level (which would nearly always be in the direction of downgrading the level).
PS The US process makes more sense when another agency (e.g. State) has taken material from one or more other agencies (CIA, NSA, DIA) to write its own analysis/synopsis, and then given that a lower level of classification than the original information held. In that case, I can see the originators of the information insisting on an upgrade of classification.
Would that not again just be a question of looking what classification was removed?
I don't really see how someone who sent something "top secret" can, after the fact, say, "well it wasn't that secret after all." If it is sent to her as "top secret" that is the way she should surely treat it.
Yes, you treat it as classified. But time sensitive data can be downgraded once it is no longer time sensitive. There is a lot that falls in that class.
Corbyn will avoid any good news and just read e mails from Bill and Ben, and any other flowerpot men he comes across.. Little Weed if he is desperate,.... Its a joke.
I take your point and well put, but to be fair, and heaven knows Corbyn needs it, every LOTO of every era ignores the good news. If he is still reading out emails then he is perpetuating his very first error at his very first PMQs.
Philip Cowley @philipjcowley 3m3 minutes ago Who will decide the elex? Where are they? How do you reach them? What do they care about? And how effective is your communication with them?
Philip Cowley @philipjcowley 2m2 minutes ago Those were five Crosby's questions that underpin election strategy.
This case is really not that complicated. Clinton has not been SoS for the best part of 4 years now. During the years she was SoS she seems to have stupidly sent secure e-mails to a private server which did not have the security provided for government servers. There is no evidence of any actual damage being caused by this or any security breach but there might have been and it may be a technical offence was committed.
What the hell 100 officers are doing "investigating" this is simply beyond me. I really would have thought it could have been cleared up by an IT specialist in a not particularly busy afternoon.
It reeks of politics in a way that an FBI investigation should be wary of and the closer we get to the election the more the smell grows.
Sandy Berger and General Petraeus were indicted and found guilty for far less. So, if the evidence clearly shows that Hillary broke the law - damage or no damage - some questions:
Is there one law for Hillary, and another for everyone else? Should the application of the law be modified because of the election cycle? Do we want a President who made the conscious decision to be cavalier with classified information at the highest levels over a prolonged period simply in order to shield herself from FOIA requests? Do we want a President who considers herself above the law?
These should not be partisan questions, although the last two certainly will be used in a partisan fashion.
1. No, of course not. But the same is also true in reverse. This has been supposedly being investigated for the best part of a year now and the facts must surely have been instantly ascertainable once the server was recovered.
...
They should indict or drop and they really need to do this before Iowa. 6 months ago would have been better still.
I haven't been following closely, but I understood that the Hillary camp have been stalling and drip feeding the emails to them in batches
Moreover, all the intelligence labeling had been scrubbed so they need to work with cleared people to confirm the classifications which can't be an easy process to recreate.
And they need to be very very sure of what they are doing. If they get it wrong and indict without an open and shut case they will be in *real* trouble
My life has been very sheltered, so I might be completely wrong, but I thought the effect of poppers was, err, muscular, rather than psycho-active. So why would this bill apply to them?
They make you feel slightly light headed and increase heart rate briefly.
Like coffee?
No. More like laxatives, but it does remarkable (good) things to one's anus, when you add in where a man's g spot is, it is a rather enjoyable experience.
I'm not speaking from experience. I was offered them but declined. You don't put diesel in a Ferrari
Is this site turning into some Dear Deidry place? Or is it going to return to its main purpose?
American astronomers say they have strong evidence that there is a ninth policy in our Solar System orbiting far to the left of even Corbyn's existing policies.
The team, from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), has no direct observations to confirm its presence just yet.
Rather, the scientists make the claim based on the way other far-flung policies are seen to move.
But if correct, the putative policy would have 10 times the comedy value of Trident submarines with no missiles, and one-millionth the popularity of negotiating over the Falklands.
The Caltech astronomers have a vague idea where the policy ought to be in space, and their work is sure to fire a campaign to try to track it down.
"There are many telescopes on the Earth that actually have a chance of being able to find it," said Dr Mike Brown . "And I'm really hoping that as we announce this, people start a worldwide search to go find this ninth policy. After all, we're astronomers, and we could do with a good laugh."
One theory states the policy will be engraved on a large black monolith sized 1:4:9.
I thought PMQs' was interesting today from the point of view that the PM gave the whole of the Labour Party a kicking and not just JC. Perhaps his patience has snapped because it's quite obvious now JC is playing fast and loose with the defence of this country. What sort of signal this sends out to the rest of the world, I don't know.
Labour MPs' look absolutely deflated and washed out. The new intake of MPs' who have been rapidly promoted seem unable to complete a coherent sentence. There is a real lack of talent in the Labour Party at the moment.
This case is really not that complicated. Clinton has not been SoS for the best part of 4 years now. During the years she was SoS she seems to have stupidly sent secure e-mails to a private server which did not have the security provided for government servers. There is no evidence of any actual damage being caused by this or any security breach but there might have been and it may be a technical offence was committed.
What the hell 100 officers are doing "investigating" this is simply beyond me. I really would have thought it could have been cleared up by an IT specialist in a not particularly busy afternoon.
It reeks of politics in a way that an FBI investigation should be wary of and the closer we get to the election the more the smell grows.
Sandy Berger and General Petraeus were indicted and found guilty for far less. So, if the evidence clearly shows that Hillary broke the law - damage or no damage - some questions:
Is there one law for Hillary, and another for everyone else? Should the application of the law be modified because of the election cycle? Do we want a President who made the conscious decision to be cavalier with classified information at the highest levels over a prolonged period simply in order to shield herself from FOIA requests? Do we want a President who considers herself above the law?
These should not be partisan questions, although the last two certainly will be used in a partisan fashion.
1. No, of course not. But the same is also true in reverse. This has been supposedly being investigated for the best part of a year now and the facts must surely have been instantly ascertainable once the server was recovered.
...
They should indict or drop and they really need to do this before Iowa. 6 months ago would have been better still.
I haven't been following closely, but I understood that the Hillary camp have been stalling and drip feeding the emails to them in batches
Moreover, all the intelligence labeling had been scrubbed so they need to work with cleared people to confirm the classifications which can't be an easy process to recreate.
And they need to be very very sure of what they are doing. If they get it wrong and indict without an open and shut case they will be in *real* trouble
If it is special compartmented stuff, then they would have to isolate the suspected emails. Then work out which compartmented project it relates to. Then get clearance from the project for the FBI guys working on that part of the case. Then they would have access to confirm the email was actually especially secret...
This case is really not that complicated. Clinton has not been SoS for the best part of 4 years now. During the years she was SoS she seems to have stupidly sent secure e-mails to a private server which did not have the security provided for government servers. There is no evidence of any actual damage being caused by this or any security breach but there might have been and it may be a technical offence was committed.
What the hell 100 officers are doing "investigating" this is simply beyond me. I really would have thought it could have been cleared up by an IT specialist in a not particularly busy afternoon.
It reeks of politics in a way that an FBI investigation should be wary of and the closer we get to the election the more the smell grows.
Sandy Berger and General Petraeus were indicted and found guilty for far less. So, if the evidence clearly shows that Hillary broke the law - damage or no damage - some questions:
Is there one law for Hillary, and another for everyone else? Should the application of the law be modified because of the election cycle? Do we want a President who made the conscious decision to be cavalier with classified information at the highest levels over a prolonged period simply in order to shield herself from FOIA requests? Do we want a President who considers herself above the law?
These should not be partisan questions, although the last two certainly will be used in a partisan fashion.
1. No, of course not. But the same is also true in reverse. This has been supposedly being investigated for the best part of a year now and the facts must surely have been instantly ascertainable once the server was recovered.
...
They should indict or drop and they really need to do this before Iowa. 6 months ago would have been better still.
I haven't been following closely, but I understood that the Hillary camp have been stalling and drip feeding the emails to them in batches
Moreover, all the intelligence labeling had been scrubbed so they need to work with cleared people to confirm the classifications which can't be an easy process to recreate.
And they need to be very very sure of what they are doing. If they get it wrong and indict without an open and shut case they will be in *real* trouble
I thought - and I could be wrong - that the FBI had taken custody of the server.
Really? The security level of the e-mails is determined with the benefit of hindsight? That seems odd. Surely the sender would have had to fix the level at the time he sent it. Would it not determine who could receive it and what encryption was to be used?
As I say the FBI are in danger of damaging themselves with this procrastination and if Clinton is guilty of a serious offence people are entitled to know before they vote.
The security level is fixed at the time of sending. One of the potentially most damaging emails has Clinton instructing someone to remove classification headings and send it over unsecure communications to her unsecure server.
For such communications, stripped of the original headers, classification would have to be reasserted by the originator.
Similar to the UK, although I think we would stick with whatever was the original classification at the time of sending, unless there is clearly a reason to change the level (which would nearly always be in the direction of downgrading the level).
PS The US process makes more sense when another agency (e.g. State) has taken material from one or more other agencies (CIA, NSA, DIA) to write its own analysis/synopsis, and then given that a lower level of classification than the original information held. In that case, I can see the originators of the information insisting on an upgrade of classification.
Would that not again just be a question of looking what classification was removed?
I don't really see how someone who sent something "top secret" can, after the fact, say, "well it wasn't that secret after all." If it is sent to her as "top secret" that is the way she should surely treat it.
That's why it's a crime to remove such headers, all by itself.
This case is really not that complicated. Clinton has not been SoS for the best part of 4 years now. During t to have stupidly sent secure e-mails to a private server which did not have the security provided for government servers. There is no evidence of any actual damage being caused by this or any security breach but there might have been and it may be a technical offence was committed.
What the hell 100 officers are doing "investigating" this is simply beyond me. I really would have thought it could have been cleared up by an IT specialist in a not particularly busy afternoon.
It reeks of politics in a way that an FBI investigation should be wary of and the closer we get to the election the more the smell grows.
Sandy Berger and General Petraeus were indicted and found guilty for far less. So, if the evidence clearly shows that Hillary broke the law - damage or no damage - some questions:
Is there one law for Hillary, and another for everyone else? Should the application of the law be modified because of the election cycle? Do we want a President who made the conscious decision to be cavalier with classified information at the highest levels over a prolonged period simply in order to shield herself from FOIA requests? Do we want a President who considers herself above the law?
These should not be partisan questions, although the last two certainly will be used in a partisan fashion.
1. No, of course not. But the same is also true in reverse. This has been supposedly being investigated for the best part of a year now and the facts must surely have been instantly ascertainable once the server was recovered.
...
They should indict or drop and they really need to do this before Iowa. 6 months ago would have been better still.
I haven't been following closely, but I understood that the Hillary camp haeen scrubbed so they need to work with cleared people to confirm the classifications which can't be an easy process to recreate.
And they need to be very very sure of what they are doing. If they get it wrong and indict without an open and shut case they will be in *real* trouble
If it is special compartmented stuff, then they would have to isolate the suspected emails. Then work out which compartmented project it relates to. Then get clearance from the project for the FBI guys working on that part of the case. Then they would have access to confirm the email was actually especially secret...
Corbyn will avoid any good news and just read e mails from Bill and Ben, and any other flowerpot men he comes across.. Little Weed if he is desperate,.... Its a joke.
Next week? JC = "Emily from Islington wants to know why the Govt will not tax sugar as she is fed up being fat even though she cycles everywhere." http://tinyurl.com/qyujtgy PM = "Has she ever walked away from a pie"?
Andrew Neil @afneil 27s28 seconds ago Intelligence officials find emails on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private computer server reckoned higher than “top secret"
Don't think that HIlary will like this news to break out.
I fail to see how they are going to real get much more traction out of this. They have been digging and digging and digging for so long - and not harm has been shown to have been done.
If it has taken 'intelligence officials' this long to find this, they really aren't that good at their job.
Who is 'they'? The media, the GOP? The intelligence community and the FBI will be handling this case carefully, given what a hot political potato it is. The fact that they are not releasing stuff does not mean that they are not doing anything or even not finding anything.
The FBI have 100 full time officers and 50 part-time on the case. As RCP notes, they would not dedicate that amount of resources for this long if the early leads were all dead ends. As we know from FIFA, they don't show their hand until they are ready.
RCP, right of centre but definitely analytical rather than ideological, seems to think that the case will either die or be very serious.
This case is really not that complicated. Clinton has not been SoS for the best part of 4 years now. During the years she was SoS she seems to have stupidly sent secure e-mails to a private server which did not have the security provided for government servers. There is no evidence of any actual damage being caused by this or any security breach but there might have been and it may be a technical offence was committed.
What the hell 100 officers are doing "investigating" this is simply beyond me. I really would have thought it could have been cleared up by an IT specialist in a not particularly busy afternoon.
It reeks of politics in a way that an FBI investigation should be wary of and the closer we get to the election the more the smell grows.
The problem is that people have been sent to prison and given ruinous fines for less - while Clinton looked an and approved. One law for them all....
Philip Cowley @philipjcowley 34s35 seconds ago Cons private polling found a difference of up to 15 percentage points when naming or not naming local candidates. For all parties.
Philip Cowley @philipjcowley 6s7 seconds ago Don't think that one's been public before...
The EdStone, the gift that keeps on giving. Must have been the best £30k Labour have spent in a long time...well at least from the perspective of cheering up the nation and keeping journos with plenty to say.
The EdStone, the gift that keeps on giving. Must have been the best £30k Labour have spent in a long time...well at least from the perspective of cheering up the nation and keeping journos with plenty to say.
"Labour's head in hands moment was more carefully planned and more monumental: an 8 ft 6 in limestone tablet inscribed with Labour's six policy pledges, unveiled in a car park in Hastings. 'Our 6 pledges form the basis of our plan for working people', said . ...the stone was variously described as a policy cenotaph, a tombstone or the heaviest suicide note in history."Miliband. (p 194 Cowley/Kavanagh).
Comments
I do have to say though that discussions on the wondrous nature of the very existence of existence itself are much more satisfying than some of the more coarse discourse we slip into from time to time.
The FBI have 100 full time officers and 50 part-time on the case. As RCP notes, they would not dedicate that amount of resources for this long if the early leads were all dead ends. As we know from FIFA, they don't show their hand until they are ready.
RCP, right of centre but definitely analytical rather than ideological, seems to think that the case will either die or be very serious.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/01/13/hillary_clintons_coming_legal_crisis_129293.html
Personally I can't abide the stuff.
BBC follows where PB leads!
What the hell 100 officers are doing "investigating" this is simply beyond me. I really would have thought it could have been cleared up by an IT specialist in a not particularly busy afternoon.
It reeks of politics in a way that an FBI investigation should be wary of and the closer we get to the election the more the smell grows.
Bastards.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35360415
How can speculating on the FX rate be acceptable in the pure Corbyn-Labour Party?
Did anything out of the ordinary happen during it?
I have a mind like a Welsh Railway. One track and filthy.
My sense of humour is why I didn't go into politics.
I'd get into trouble and my apologies would make it worse.
Sort of like if Boris Johnson was from Sheffield
I was wondering what to write for Sunday. Now I'm doing a thread on poppers.
Are Cruz and Trump the evident front runners at the moment? Yes
Will either of them ever be enthusiastically endorsed (vs holding noses) by 50+% of the GOP. No
Is Rubio the Prince Regent of the Establishment? Currently
Is that position cemented in? No
Could Kasich come second in NH with over 20%? Yes
Could the anyone but Cruz or Trump (ABCOT) camp decide he's the one given Bush is shot, Kasich beat Christie in NH and Rubio has not seized the crown? Yes
Is it likely? Not really.
Do I know what is going to happen? No.
Is anyone better than evens? No. Not even The Donald.
The FBI have been blind to some very real breaches of US security, so maybe we can understand their willingness to talk up bogus leaks.
I find it pathetic that the Democrat Party cannot find a better candidate than Hillary BTW.
Is there one law for Hillary, and another for everyone else?
Should the application of the law be modified because of the election cycle?
Do we want a President who made the conscious decision to be cavalier with classified information at the highest levels over a prolonged period simply in order to shield herself from FOIA requests?
Do we want a President who considers herself above the law?
These should not be partisan questions, although the last two certainly will be used in a partisan fashion.
Corbyn will avoid any good news and just read e mails from Bill and Ben, and any other flowerpot men he comes across.. Little Weed if he is desperate,....
Its a joke.
Edit - Damn: Rob got there first!
2. The FBI should be careful not to interfere with the democratic process if possible. So if they are going to indict her they should get on with it and not wait until she is the nominated candidate of the Democratic party undermining that party's democratic process.
3. That is a question for the American people. It is not clever, I will give you that.
4. No, but you surely also don't want people to be denied the chance to vote for the first female American President because someone won't get off the pot and prefers to keep what looks like a smear going.
They should indict or drop and they really need to do this before Iowa. 6 months ago would have been better still.
Part of the delay is that the decision on what is classified and its classification level is decided by the originator of the information. Thus all these emails had to be sorted by origin, sent to those origins, the information reviewed and that process/result reviewed at least one more time at the point of origin, the findings sent to the FBI for collation, and then further painstaking interviewing of the principals involved.
Not justifying the deathly slow pace, just explaining it. And the fact that it is such a political hot potato will have slowed down the whole process, with everyone taking meticulous care that they are playing to the letter of the book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotsmac
I can't tell you what it tastes like, the idea itself is boakworthy enough.
They dilate the blood vessels and allow more blood to get to the heart. Poppers are sniffed from the bottle with immediate effects which fade after a couple of minutes.
As I say the FBI are in danger of damaging themselves with this procrastination and if Clinton is guilty of a serious offence people are entitled to know before they vote.
For such communications, stripped of the original headers, classification would have to be reasserted by the originator.
Similar to the UK, although I think we would stick with whatever was the original classification at the time of sending, unless there is clearly a reason to change the level (which would nearly always be in the direction of downgrading the level).
PS The US process makes more sense when another agency (e.g. State) has taken material from one or more other agencies (CIA, NSA, DIA) to write its own analysis/synopsis, and then given that a lower level of classification than the original information held. In that case, I can see the originators of the information insisting on an upgrade of classification.
It just seems absurd. OTOH if e-mails marked top secret have been sent to a private non secure server for the reasons Tim said, basically to hide what she was really saying from freedom of information requests, that should be pretty clear too.
''effects which fade after a couple of minutes.''
I don't really see how someone who sent something "top secret" can, after the fact, say, "well it wasn't that secret after all." If it is sent to her as "top secret" that is the way she should surely treat it.
If he is still reading out emails then he is perpetuating his very first error at his very first PMQs.
Who will decide the elex? Where are they? How do you reach them? What do they care about? And how effective is your communication with them?
Philip Cowley @philipjcowley 2m2 minutes ago
Those were five Crosby's questions that underpin election strategy.
Moreover, all the intelligence labeling had been scrubbed so they need to work with cleared people to confirm the classifications which can't be an easy process to recreate.
And they need to be very very sure of what they are doing. If they get it wrong and indict without an open and shut case they will be in *real* trouble
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_Mac
http://business.fau.edu/departments/economics/business-economics-polling/bepi-polls/index.aspx#.Vp_Uak948uS
Trump surges to 48% in Florida. Matches the highest share I have seen for him so far which was in Massachusetts back in October.
Clinton strengthens a little to trail Trump by 3 points and Sanders trails Trump by 5 points in the head to head match ups.
The team, from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), has no direct observations to confirm its presence just yet.
Rather, the scientists make the claim based on the way other far-flung policies are seen to move.
But if correct, the putative policy would have 10 times the comedy value of Trident submarines with no missiles, and one-millionth the popularity of negotiating over the Falklands.
The Caltech astronomers have a vague idea where the policy ought to be in space, and their work is sure to fire a campaign to try to track it down.
"There are many telescopes on the Earth that actually have a chance of being able to find it," said Dr Mike Brown
.
"And I'm really hoping that as we announce this, people start a worldwide search to go find this ninth policy. After all, we're astronomers, and we could do with a good laugh."
One theory states the policy will be engraved on a large black monolith sized 1:4:9.
Labour MPs' look absolutely deflated and washed out. The new intake of MPs' who have been rapidly promoted seem unable to complete a coherent sentence. There is a real lack of talent in the Labour Party at the moment.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information
She is in the poop
JC = "Emily from Islington wants to know why the Govt will not tax sugar as she is fed up being fat even though she cycles everywhere."
http://tinyurl.com/qyujtgy
PM = "Has she ever walked away from a pie"?
'Official' hastag for Centre for Opposition Studies' Lynton Crosby lecture, just starting, is #Crosbylecture
JC = "Vladimir from Moscow writes to me asking us to get rid of all our nasty nuclear weapons...."
Jeremey Corbyn @jeremeycorbyn 41s42 seconds ago
Simon from Preston would like to know "where is the Ed Stone?" #pmqs
Cons private polling found a difference of up to 15 percentage points when naming or not naming local candidates. For all parties.
Philip Cowley @philipjcowley 6s7 seconds ago
Don't think that one's been public before...
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/fluechtlingskrise-wie-angela-merkels-macht-erodiert-14023436.html