Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Media Government United States Politics Your Rights Online

WSJ Crowdsources Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails 231

Posted by timothy from the tag-this-story-recursive dept.
PvtVoid writes: The Wall Street Journal now has a page up that encourages readers to sift through and tag Hillary Clinton's emails on Benghazi. Users can click on suggested tags such as "Heated", "Personal", "Boring", or "Interesting", or supply their own tags. What could possibly go wrong? I'm tagging this story "election2016."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WSJ Crowdsources Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails More

WSJ Crowdsources Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails

Comments Filter:

  • "WSJ stunt to maximize anti-Clinton engagement" (Score:3)

    by guanxi ( 216397 ) on Friday May 22, 2015 @06:33PM (#49755413)

    Remember that the Wall Street Journal is owned by the same people who own Fox News and several tabloids that are even worse, the News Corp (i.e., Rupert Murdoch); you can even see WSJ reporters on Fox.

    It's well established that their owners exercise few journalistic ethics and little regard for the truth, and they publish pro-GOP propaganda, along with incitements to prejudice, anger and hate. Why does anyone trust them?

    This stunt should not be a surprise.

    • Not relevant, the Clintons are thieves, scammers and liars anyway. Their "charity" spent more on office supplies than actually giving aid, look it up.

      • Re:"WSJ stunt to maximize anti-Clinton engagement" (Score:4, Interesting)

        by dunkindave ( 1801608 ) on Friday May 22, 2015 @07:11PM (#49755615)
        I say not relevant for a different reason. The emails that have been released are those that Clinton decided should not be deleted, so unless she made a mistake, there shouldn't be anything incriminating left to find. And to make sure, after extracting and turning over all the safe emails, sorry I meant official emails, she wiped the disks. Maybe there was nothing there, but her actions sure look like those of a guilty person, so either she is stupid or she is guilty. I don't want either in the White House (again).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by MrL0G1C ( 867445 )

          You have a first past the post system which means like us in the UK you're kind of screwed, you can vote for Clinton or you can vote GOP which from past experience means someone who is likely a climate denier and a war-monger. Or you can vote 3rd party but then your vote doesn't count and if you're in a state that always stays with the same party then again, your vote doesn't count.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c... [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]

      Please explain how "reviewing Hillary Clinton's emails from her time in office" automatically constitutes "publishing pro-GOP progaganda"? If you think that the mere act of inspecting and republishing public records is pro-GOP propaganda, then I submit you have a terribly low opinion of Mrs. Clinton, and expect that she engaged in a lot of malfeasance and abuse during her time in office.

      It's funny that you're trying to discredit this *before a single word has been uttered b

      • Please explain how "reviewing Hillary Clinton's emails from her time in office" automatically constitutes "publishing pro-GOP progaganda"?

        It's the "on Benghazi" part you omitted. You know, the tragedy where four people were killed, and Fox elevated it to 24/7 coverage, national crisis levels for multiple years trying to uncover a cover-up conspiracy that didn't exist.

        • Well, these are Hillary's emails from that time period. If they show her and her advisors discussing how it had to be a YouTube video, we'll know they were giving us the best information they had at the time. On the other hand, if they're talking in the emails about how it was an al Qaeda terrorist attack at times when they were claiming to the American people that it was a YouTube video, we'll know it was a coverup.

  • It's fun! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22, 2015 @06:46PM (#49755487)

    I have already randomly tagged some :)

  • Not news, not for nerds, doesn't matter (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mbstone ( 457308 ) on Friday May 22, 2015 @06:51PM (#49755519)

    Guess what Slashdot, people read other websites. I don't read /. for political news. And except for AM radio conservatives, nobody gives a shit about Benghazi.

    • Re:Not news, not for nerds, doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Friday May 22, 2015 @07:37PM (#49755755)

      nobody gives a shit about Benghazi

      Except for people who care that Obama and his administration blatantly lied about what happened in the period right before an election. And we see that Hillary Clinton knew very well that what was being said by both State and White House spokesdroids (and by her, and the president himself) was pure fabricated BS meant to placate prospective voters. They deliberately lied about what happened so that those events wouldn't contradict the narrative that Obama was trying to sell in his re-election bid. The people who actually know this, and who claim they don't care, are desperately hoping that Clinton's complicity in spreading that lie won't remain on people's minds during this upcoming election.

      • The people who actually know this, and who claim they don't care, are desperately hoping that Clinton's complicity in spreading that lie won't remain on people's minds during this upcoming election.

        What makes you think anybody wants to see Mrs. President Hillary? (Again?) The last time she tried, an unknown senator from Chicago got the nomination, and I'm willing to bet only pat of the reason was "unknown half-black senator." The other part was "not Hillary."

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        Except for people who care that Obama and his administration blatantly lied about what
        happened

        Bullshit. There is no clear evidence for such. I've debated you before about it on slashdot, and you lost the debate by my reckoning. Seems you want to lose again.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Xyrus ( 755017 )

        nobody gives a shit about Benghazi

        Except for people who care that Obama and his administration blatantly lied about what happened in the period right before an election. And we see that Hillary Clinton knew very well that what was being said by both State and White House spokesdroids (and by her, and the president himself) was pure fabricated BS meant to placate prospective voters. They deliberately lied about what happened so that those events wouldn't contradict the narrative that Obama was trying to sell in his re-election bid. The people who actually know this, and who claim they don't care, are desperately hoping that Clinton's complicity in spreading that lie won't remain on people's minds during this upcoming election.

        Except for people who care that Bush and his administration blatantly lied about what happened in the period right before an election. And we see that Colin Powell knew very well that what was being said by both State and White House spokesdroids (and by him, and the president himself) was pure fabricated BS meant to placate prospective voters. They deliberately lied about what happened so that those events wouldn't contradict the narrative that Bush was trying to sell in his re-election bid. The people who actually know this, and who claim they don't care, are desperately hoping that Powell's complicity in spreading that lie won't remain on people's minds during this upcoming election.

        The hypocrisy is real.

        At least if there was some sort of conspiracy involved, this one kept the body count in single digits and didn't destabilize an entire region of the globe. But whatever helps you sleep at night.

    • And except for AM radio conservatives, nobody gives a shit about Benghazi.

      You would think so, but evidently not. If nobody cared, the State Department wouldn't time the release for take-out-the-trash Friday (the day when you get the least news cycle result). Instead, the timing points to an obviously politically motivated timing utterly inappropriate to a theoretically neutral unit of government.

    • Re:Not news, not for nerds, doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)

      by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Friday May 22, 2015 @08:34PM (#49756029)

      > nobody gives a shit about Benghazi.

      What about the cover-up?

      If nobody cares about that, when shouldn't we care even less about Watergate? At least nobody was killed in the Watergate scandal.

    • And except for AM radio conservatives, nobody gives a shit about Benghazi.

      Are you kidding? One of the victims of the Benghazi attack was a major diplomatic power in EVE Online. The game was permanently altered by his death.

      He served on the Council of Stellar Management, a position you get by player votes, and there are only 9 members. You have to be very visible and quite well respected to get a seat. You get a free trip to Iceland out of the deal, plus the ability to propose significant changes to the game with the assurance that CCP will seriously consider the proposal. It

  • Why not? (Score:3)

    by Maltheus ( 248271 ) on Friday May 22, 2015 @07:18PM (#49755655)

    After you wade past the trolls, Disqus is already the best fact checker for any story out there. Obviously, you have to follow up with a search to confirm what you read in the comments, but that's where I usually find the most important (unreported) portion of most stories.

    Same is true of slashdot. Which is why most of us don't even RTFA.

  • Oh, I'm sure *that* will be impartial. (rolls eyes}

  • Maybe someday we'll know why we invaded iraq (Score:5, Informative)

    by Required Snark ( 1702878 ) on Friday May 22, 2015 @08:53PM (#49756127)
    Now that the Republicans are so worried about bad decision making in foreign policy, perhaps they will turn their attention to the monumental failures before and after 9/11. You know, like the warning given to George W Bush about the possibility of an Al Queda attack on the US. The one that he and his entire administration completely ignored. [wikipedia.org]

    And then there was whole problem of invading the wrong country for the wrong reason. Oops. I wonder how that happened. We still don't know.

    None of the hijackers were from Iran [wikipedia.org]. Fifteen were from Saudi Arabia, two from the Emirates and one each from Egypt and Lebanon. Not an Iraqi in sight. The were all Sunni member of Al Queda, and citizens of (at the time) US allies in the Arab world.

    And then there was the problem with no weapons of mass destruction. Oops again. There were no biological weapons. [wikipedia.org] There was no uranium separation/enrichment program. [wikipedia.org] "Iraq's WMD capability ... was essentially destroyed in 1991" ... No evidence was found for continued active production of WMD subsequent to the imposition of sanctions in 1991 [wikipedia.org] The chemical weapons that Iraq had in the 1980's that were used against Iran were built using technology imported from the West. [wikipedia.org]

    So why was all the intelligence about Iraq wrong? That is an unanswered question. The Republican controlled Congress never stepped up to the plate to ask any hard questions. Gosh, I wonder why?

    Of course, there is a clue: PNAC, or the Project for the New American Century [wikipedia.org]. PNAC released a Statement of Principles [wikipedia.org] in 1997 calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein [wikipedia.org]. It was signed by Dick Chaney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, Elliot Abrams, Eliot A. Cohen, Aaron Friedberg, Peter Rodman, Henry Rowen, and Paul Wolfowitz, who all ended up working for the Bush administration. One would almost think that they used 9/11 as an excuse and made up a bunch of crap to make it happen.

    Back to Benghazi. It was a big mistake and four people died. In Iraq he US military alone suffered 4,425 total deaths (including both killed in action and non-hostile) and 32,223 wounded in action [wikipedia.org]. The civilian death and injured toll is staggering, and still going up.

    So fuck the WSJ, and fuck the Republican Party. Collectively they are mass murderers. When they scream about Benghazi it's like child molesters complaining about someone playing their radio too loud. The fact that they have so much power shows that voters in the US have less intelligence then a pack of inbreed poodles.

    • So why was all the intelligence about Iraq wrong? That is an unanswered question. The Republican controlled Congress never stepped up to the plate to ask any hard questions. Gosh, I wonder why? Of course, there is a clue: PNAC, or the Project for the New American Century [wikipedia.org]. PNAC released a Statement of Principles [wikipedia.org] in 1997 calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein [wikipedia.org]. It was signed by Dick Chaney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, Elliot Abrams, Eliot A. Cohen, Aaron Friedberg, Peter Rodman, Henry Rowen, and Paul Wolfowitz, who all ended up working for the Bush administration. One would almost think that they used 9/11 as an excuse and made up a bunch of crap to make it happen.

      Sounds like you have the answer to your question.

    • "So why was all the intelligence about Iraq wrong? That is an unanswered question. The Republican controlled Congress never stepped up to the plate to ask any hard questions. Gosh, I wonder why? "

      WTF are you talking about? EVERY nation's intelligence service agreed that Saddam was working to obtain nuclear weapons, and everybody ALREADY KNEW that he had chemical weapons - because he had already USED them, in Iran and on his own people.

      • Re:Maybe someday we'll know why we invaded iraq (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Required Snark ( 1702878 ) on Friday May 22, 2015 @10:56PM (#49756629)
        I quoted Wikipedia articles to verify my statements. Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran when they were fightiing a proxy war for the US and it's allies. I quoted that Wikipedia article too. I showed evidence that the only chemical weapons in Iraq were left over from the Iran-Iraq war.

        The justification for going to war was based on all the bad intelligence pushed by the Bush administration. For example Colin Powell said that his incorrect statement to the United Nations [usatoday.com] were "a 'blot' on his record."

        The Blair government in England published the September Dossier [wikipedia.org] claiming that Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium and that it could used weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes, It was found to be completely wrong: "Without exception, all of the allegations included within the September Dossier have been since proven to be false". An inquiry after the war was told by Major General Michael Laurie, one of those involved in producing the dossier: "the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care."

        The British, like the Bush administration, deliberately lied. They did not, in fact, have credible or actionable intelligence.

        I pointed out not only that they were wrong about everything, but that they had previously stated intentions to topple Saddam Hussein. If it was a crime investigation, this would supply clear motive.

        You have quoted nothing. Your reply is an opinion with no external references. I made a point to quote sources like Wikipedia that have some claim to objectivity.

        Bush, Cheney, all the people who signed the PNAC statement, are far right ideologues who instigated an unnecessary war of aggression. They used propaganda and lies to achieve their ends. The result is an unmitigated disaster that has destabilized the Middle East. You are an accessory after the fact and you share their guilt. You are known by the company you keep.

      • "WTF are you talking about? EVERY nation's intelligence service agreed that Saddam was working to obtain nuclear weapons, and everybody ALREADY KNEW that he had chemical weapons"

        Um, no. I live in Switzerland, and based on the European news at the time it was completely clear that Saddam had nothing left. He may have wanted such weapons, but what he had left was a shell-game he was playing with UN inspectors, with empty shells.

        When Bush announced the Iraq attack, and I told my family back in the US that he s

    • I agree with your comments about the Iraq war (see my other comment below), but I disagree with brushing off Benghazi. Both major parties in the US are corrupt. The fact that one party has done evil is no justification for excusing evil by the other party. Benghazi, in terms of the number of deaths, was small compared to the various wars. Note, however, that Obama's administration carried on with those wars, with Guantanamo, and with lots of other lovely things.

      The reason Benghazi is currently important is

  • And this is so much different in what the NYT did when they did the same thing to Palin's STOLEN emails..... how, exactly?

  • Email Headers and Metadata (Score:3)

    by RoccamOccam ( 953524 ) on Friday May 22, 2015 @09:38PM (#49756303)

    I don't know the answer to this, but I suspect I know the answer: does Hilary's printed email dump (which is all that she will provide) include the email headers and associated metadata that comes with an electronic copy of an email?

    I rather doubt that she has; but, I ask because she claims that she has fulfilled her obligation by providing printed versions of the emails. So, even if we were willing to concede that incredibly dubious claim, has she really complied with the law by not providing the entire electronic record?

    Obviously, this part of the email can be quite important (just ask the NSA), so if she isn't providing that, what is her justification for not doing so?

    If the law doesn't specifically make an exemption for that, then it can't be omitted. When she received an email, the header is a part of the email that she received. Therefore, it is part of the official record.

  • Obviously, the email that the Benghazi conspiracy nuts are looking for - the one where Obama tells Hillary to launch their secret Islamist army against the Americans so he can bring about his New World Order - is in there somewhere.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real programmers don't comment their code. It was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.

Close