Government Finds New Emails Clinton Did Not Hand Over 348
PolygamousRanchKid writes with this Reuters report that The U.S. Defense Department has found an email chain that Hillary Clinton failed to turn over to the State Department despite her saying she had provided all work emails from her time as Secretary of State.The correspondence with General David Petraeus, who was commander of U.S. Central Command at the time, started shortly before she entered office and continued during her first days as the top U.S. diplomat in January and February of 2009. News of the previously undisclosed email thread only adds to a steady stream of revelations about the emails in the past six months, which have forced Clinton to revise her account of the setup which she first gave in March. Nearly a third of all Democrats and 58 percent of all voters think Clinton is lying about her handling of her emails, according to a Fox News poll released this week.
Clinton apologized this month for her email setup, saying it was unwise. But as recently as Sunday, she told CBS when asked about her emails that she provided 'all of them.' The emails with Petraeus also appear to contradict the claim by Clinton's campaign that she used a private BlackBerry email account for her first two months at the department before setting up her clintonemail.com account in March 2009. This was the reason her campaign gave for not handing over any emails from those two months to the State Department. The Petraeus exchange shows she started using the clintonemail.com account by January 2009, according to the State Department.
Clinton apologized this month for her email setup, saying it was unwise. But as recently as Sunday, she told CBS when asked about her emails that she provided 'all of them.' The emails with Petraeus also appear to contradict the claim by Clinton's campaign that she used a private BlackBerry email account for her first two months at the department before setting up her clintonemail.com account in March 2009. This was the reason her campaign gave for not handing over any emails from those two months to the State Department. The Petraeus exchange shows she started using the clintonemail.com account by January 2009, according to the State Department.
what difference... (Score:5, Funny)
"What difference, at this point, does it make?" I mean, sure, she lied, she exposed sensitive government information to foreign spies, and she may have covered up some "private" dealings. But, hey, doesn't she deserve to be president? She is a woman, after all, and she only really cares about us, the people! She can't save us if we don't cut her a little slack?
Re:what difference... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Clinton dismissed the notion that she set up the private
account and server to make it more difficult for her government
officials or her political enemies to gather information on her record
as she seeks the White House."
“That’s totally ridiculous, that never crossed my mind,” Clinton said." [thehill.com]
OK, now we've crossed over into the Onion Zone. Parody Writers couldn't come up with better stuff if they tried.
Face facts, she is not going to admit anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Face facts, she is not going to admit anything (Score:5, Funny)
I'm engaged, and never cared.
Maybe you should sit down and have a long, hard talk with your fiancee.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that what you got from the story? Hmm... I must be doing it wrong. Even as a child, and this was a long time ago, my conclusion was that the little lying bastard deserved to be eaten and his family shunned for having raised an idiot. Maybe that's why my mother stopped reading me stories?
Reuters, not Fox (Score:2)
Re: Face facts, she is not going to admit anythin (Score:2)
They did. But, that doesn't cover all the internal e-mail to her staff that used the same server (Huma), or e-mail to anyone not using a U.S. Government computer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They did. But, that doesn't cover all the internal e-mail to her staff that used the same server (Huma), or e-mail to anyone not using a U.S. Government computer.
It also doesn't cover the face-to-face meetings she had with her staff, the phone calls with her staff, etc. The "missing emails" amount to 0.003% of all the communication that she did. Even if you had every last shred of every email she has ever sent, you would still only have about 5% of all the communication that she has done.
Email is just one of many many communication mechanisms that people use, and it is nowhere near being the most popular form of communication either.
But lets have an "email-gate" a
Re: (Score:2)
So you think that we shouldn't even bother recording any government actions because the majority of it cannot be recorded and opened to public inspection anyways?
Lets get crazy and see how silly this sounds when we apply it to murder. We will never catch a certain percentage of murderers so investigating all of them is pointless. We will never document all illegal aliens so lets get rid of the legal process and ignore them altogether. Hmm.. sounds silly right? Almost as silly as ignoring Hillary's emailed t
whose email box? Who all did she send confidential (Score:2)
Whose boxes should they look in? Who all did she send confidential information to? Should they look at my email and yours to see if she sent us information which was classified? Her powerful friends over in Saudi Arabia , should investigators look in there computers to see what she sent them?
Re: (Score:2)
Mishandling of classified information has been illegal since the 1920s. I'm not trying to maximize it, I'm trying to be realistic about it. It should be fairly well known that I'm not, by any means, a Republican or a Fox News viewer. I have no motivation to dislike her because of who she's affiliated with (I loved Bill, for example) but I dislike her because of who she is, what she stands for, and how she behaves.
The "they did it too" argument was childish and ignorant before. Parrot it some more. Also, FOA
Re: (Score:3)
this proves she did not
she is not fit to be the leader of this country
Re: (Score:2)
Advanced knowledge of foreign policy changes or influence in setting policy can be *very* valuable. It currently appears she was in contact with folks who act to sell that influence, kept private so it could be for the benefit of the Clinton's vs the Democrat party or the current administration (with politicians of either party I'm assuming just adopting
Re: (Score:2)
This "email-gate" scandal is so fucking stupid anyway. Why can't the Defense Department just pull the emails they want from the recipients mailboxes (off the legitimate government email servers)?
Surely, Hillary did not use her private email server to send emails just to herself.
Anybody who knows jack shit about technology, knows that emails always go through _your_ email server, to _their_ email server. There are always two fucking servers involved -- Hillary ran her own private server, why doesn't the government pull whatever historical information they want from their own damn servers?
*end rant*
From what I can tell, the problem is that it did not universally go through their servers--because Hillary had a private email server when she was supposed to be using theirs.
Surely, Hillary did not send every single email sent from her private server to people using the Fed servers.
That, and exactly how do you think this technical feat can be done, assuming all of her emails did improbably enough go to somebody whose email is handled by official government servers? Do you think the Fed's servers are s
Nothing to see here, move on (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Insightful)
^^^ This is the sad truth.
Not only won't she be held accountable, people are still willing to vote for a proven fraud and liar. Good Lord -- Nixon got the boot from office for less than this woman has done, and yet there are millions of American Idiots willing to vote for her!
'twould be a sad, sad day were she to win the election.
Almost as sad as it would be to see Trump prevail.
Sanders is really looking like the best bet the US has for an honest President, but I think he's a pretty long shot, unfortunately. He's not flashy enough and "out there" enough to win enough votes. :(
Re: (Score:3)
'twould be a sad, sad day were she to win the election.
Almost as sad as it would be to see Trump prevail.
It is a sad day for America, when we are not voting for the best candidate, but for the "least worst".
I have a houseplant that is starting to look good, compared to the rest of the folks in the field . . .
Re: (Score:3)
So let the election come down to Sanders/Warren vs Trump/Fiorina. If nothing else, it would be quite entertaining. It doesn't really matter who's Preside
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, neither Sanders/Warren nor Trump/Fiorina are beholden to the big corporate donors who control both the mainstream Democrats and the mainstream Republicans. It's a direct threat to the C-level fuckers who run things.
The US Chamber of Commerce want Bush. Wall Street wants Clinton. Both bodies really find either candidate acceptable.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, which is why we shouldn't elect either one of them...
I don't like Sanders, I think his ideas are not realistic...
However I'd take him in a new york min over Clinton...
Are they voting for her or agaisnt reps ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Are they voting for her or agaisnt reps ? (Score:4, Informative)
as for PP if you want it so much, you pay for it. there is no reason that the federal money given to them cant be given to other womens cliniques who are not run by disgusting animals
Re: (Score:3)
There's only one way to stop that. Sanders is the pressure relief valve. The safety valve if you will. If he wins, nothing really changes. You'll get some relief on tuition or student debt or a tax hike or something. (Don't get me wrong, all good stuff.)
But the powers that be will all still be in place, untouched by Sanders. I'm not impugning his motives. Like you, I believe Sanders is as honest as the day is long. Just like many of the individuals in Washington today. But with his 51-49 win, somewhat to th
Re: (Score:2)
What's really sad is that she's still a better alternative than Trump :(
Can you elaborate?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At least Trump didn't kill a bunch of people and is willing to do something about those mexicans.
Trump only hasn't killed people for lack of opportunity, and he's not going to do shit about Mexicans. We Mexicans are doing something about you, though. We're outbreeding you. Mexican-Americans are the single fastest-growing demographic in the USA. Guess what? Now, go ahead and complain about people descended from Native Americans (albeit central America) taking over the country. I'll wait. I'll be over here, eating a churro
Re: Nothing to see here, move on (Score:2, Insightful)
Proud of fulfilling the ugly stereotypes? That's disappointing. How about not doing all the shitty things that make people not want to live with you in the first place?
Re: Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. Mexico would be no different today even if the US left it completely alone.
The problem is not the US doing anything to Mexico, it is Mexico and it's leadership. It has been corrupt and lacking in freedom since before the french owned your asses. Today, you have drug cartels that have been allowed to exist so long that they are more powerful than the government in many regards. You have people relegated to subsistence farming instead of an open market where they could actually farm something profitable and sell. The government rarely invests in highways or infrastructure outside a small few areas in which they have an economic interest in. The same is almost universally true with education (although Mexico has some very competent universities)
Yes, the problem with Mexico is Mexico- not the US.
Re: Nothing to see here, move on (Score:4, Insightful)
Lol.. Blame it all on everyone else while the local corruption is glossed over. No, the drug cartels gained so much power because the PRI or Partido Revolucionario Institucional- allowed and cooperated with them. If you had to blame anyone outside of Mexico for the increased violence, you could blame Pablo Escobar who arranged for the Colombian cocaine to be shipped through Mexico in their own heroine and marijuana smuggling tracks.
Now that the PRI is out of power, the new political parties want to break up the cartels to gain aid and other gifts from the US which was a key component of NAFTA in which Mexico benefits more so than any other country involve. Fox pretended to care about the cartels and at one time actually stated it was the powerful cartels he wanted gone, not the drug trafficking.
Systematic poverty and poor education is blamed largely for enabling this situation. That is brought about because of oppression of government and illegal activity being about the only real way of advancing out of poverty for the majority of Mexican citizens.Among the OECD countries, Mexico has the second highest degree of economic disparity between the extremely poor and extremely rich. The bottom ten percent in the income hierarchy disposes of 1.36% of the country's resources, whereas the upper ten percent dispose of almost 36%. OECD also notes that Mexico's budgeted expenses for poverty alleviation and social development is only about a third of the OECD average. [wikipedia.org]
You can blame anything you want. But the only way to effect change is to understand the problem at it's roots and you seem to be ignoring that.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I for one welcome our churro-having overlords.
As long as they share.
Re: (Score:3)
Not faster than your hundreds of millions of cousins south of the border, you're going to be begging Trump Inc to build a wall before you go back to the standard of living of Native Americans
Well, depending on which Native Americans you're talking about, that might not be that bad. I certainly wouldn't want to live like an Aztec, but I currently live in Pomo territory, and I'd sure love to go back to their original standard of living. Unfortunately, that is literally impossible to do today, because of the deliberate actions of the US Government. They paid white immigrants to the region $1/ea to plant black walnut trees, which meant cutting or burning the native oaks. The oaks provided free food
Re: (Score:2)
Outbreeding, now there's a solid strategy for the future.
It seems to be working. At this rate, we'll be able to simply outvote you consistently. God help you if we're ever unified into a single voting bloc. But hey, Trump might actually manage that. Of course, it won't be in his favor, or that of the (R)s...
Guy, it's a good thing you don't speak for your whole country
I'm just stating facts, if they make you uncomfortable, that's your problem and not mine. Even with a reduced projection [pewresearch.org] due to ongoing economic failure in the USA (which some of you are still in denial about, in spite of the figures from the labor department
Re: (Score:3)
You know what's funny? She was part of the Whitewater investigation.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
made up like in FBI saying she took and coped and sent state confidently emails to and from non-gov server ..then tried to get aids and others to send her top secret things off a closed network to her email
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
One thing should be clear - Americans don't like liars.
One thing should be clear — that's a stupid thing to say. Americans don't like liars that don't agree with their biases, but they like liars just fine. That's why they keep voting for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's proof that is not true:
http://futurefirstlady.com/wp-... [futurefirstlady.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Holy crap, the internet really speeds up the rewriting of history.
Bush never got "caught". And if he had been caught at what we think he did, that would also catch the 98 Senators that voted with him, who were privy to all the info he was. Everybody seems to forget that Bill Clinton himself, from "retirement", said we should go get Saddam. I guess the narrative that Bush Lied fits better ona bumper sticker.
And Nixon, after being "caught", was run out of town on a rail, disowned and dishonored.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:4, Interesting)
Dear me, what is actually wrong with Americans and their politics? Maybe you guys need a Jeremy Corbyn to change the tone - somebody who has the temerity to shuffle along in slippers and speak plainly, but politely about things that actually matter to people. I thought it was amazing to watch him during the first PMQ - no jeering, no cheap point scoring. You can respect a guy like that.
How much does it actually matter that she sent some emails from her home server? And before you get into hysterical overdrive, remember that the people of America actually elected a self-confessed ex-drunk like GWB into that office, and got perilously close to letting Sarah Palin into power. And there are people right now who seriously consider voting for a windbag like mr Trump. So, how much of this email hype is actually about the seriousness of having been a bit lax with her emails, and how much is about trying to paint her in a bad light no matter what the objective reality is?
It is no wonder that all your politicians seem to be somewhat out of contact with the real world, because nobody in possession of their full, mental capabilities would voluntarily subject themselves to the sort of treatment they get from the press and the lobbies - with the willing, not to say eager participation of You the People. As a side note, next time anybody from the US suggests that 'Democracy' should be introduced in country X, remember that the way you do those things does not look all that attractive to foreigners.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Interesting)
There are some potentially sensible candidates on the left and right, but no one's paying much attention to them right now. It doesn't really matter who becomes president as long as Congress remains broken. Voters are largely indifferent because the two party system is effectively rigged to keep those two parties in power. I could see Trump getting elected on name appeal alone. It's still pretty early, though. I suspect Trump and Hillary will end up getting ejected from the race. Whatever happens, it's going to be a wild ride.
Re:Nothing to see here, move on (Score:5, Insightful)
remember that the people of America actually elected a self-confessed ex-drunk like GWB into that office
What's wrong with voting for a self-confessed ex-drunk? I don't see it being bad at all for a imperfect person running for office to say "I used to have a problem, but I no longer have the problem, or am at least managing the problem". I can see a problem with an alcoholic who lies to himself and doesn't believe he's an alcoholic; I can see a problem with an alcoholic who hides it from the public and lies about it when confronted. But someone who's reformed? I don't see the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
And before you get into hysterical overdrive, remember that the people of America actually elected a self-confessed ex-drunk like GWB into that office, and got perilously close to letting Sarah Palin into power
and even worse than that, elected obama...2 times no less
Re: (Score:3)
The emails themselves matter very little. It will be the lies about it that do.
And btw, McCain/Palin had one chance to win: That a racist nation would reject a black candidate. We see how that went for them. So perilously close is a bit of an overstatement.
For those that still buy into the narrative; it hasn't been cool to be a racist in the US since about 1980.
Re: (Score:2)
The laws only apply to the little people, not the Clintons. If Whitewater, the Tyson payoff through bogus "futures investing",
Sadly quite true. I don't know much about Whitewater but it sounds like she got special treatement.
the Vince Foster murder, the Ron Brown murder and all the rest didn't even touch her
And then we go off the deep end...
Could the Clintons have covered up a murder? Possibly. But that doesn't mean everyone around them who died under slightly unusual circumstances was actually the victim of some elaborate Urquhartian murder and coverup conspiracy.
Those were accident and suicide (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't Libel when you state the truth. I know Slashdot would give up my ID in a second, but I'm not worried. But just in case I haven't made it easy enough for her to go after me, here's more:
In the Tyson case there were numerous securities violations as Tyson funneled money to the Clintons through her and their common broker, with a supposedly magical ability to profit in the futures market. Yea, I know it was investigated by a Democrat controlled congress and they said that they didn't find anything, b
beat the dead horse (Score:2, Insightful)
seriously. so the fuck what. this is the best the GOP's got on her?
it's like lewinsky all over again. spinning up a fucking tornado gushing crocodile tears like Tammy Fae over an email server and a blow job.
if you want me to vote for you how about this: tell me your plan to stop the manufacturing hemorrhage. I don't care about emails and blow jobs which may or may not have allowed the country to run more smoothly, noise about them are just bluster and smoke.
anything to distract from the fact that your best
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say it is exactly like Lewinsky.
There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton has engaged in systematic sexual harassment in the workplace. That was her husband Bill's gig.
Not the server (Score:2, Flamebait)
that I have a problem with. It's (once again) the ease in which the Clinton's tell bold faced lies (I did not have sexual relations with that woman).
So this time they find a thread that she's forgot? I call BULLSHIT!
The whole family is dirty and was the cause of the 2008 failure, what's it going to take to get rid of this bitch?
Re:Not the server (Score:4, Informative)
You may not be a native english speaker, so please take this as helpful information. The expression is "bald-faced lie" or "bare-faced lie", not "bold-faced lie"; a gem brought to you by the world's most mystifying language. Most likely the origin of "bald-faced lie"/"bare-faced lie" refer to (figuratively) wearing no mask.
You can rest easy, though. So many illiterate people have taken up "bold-faced" in lieu of "bald-faced"/"bare-faced" that it is rapidly becoming perfectly accepted. Thus in tiny pieces a language is corrupted. Apologies to Mark Twain's observations.
Re:Not the server (Score:5, Interesting)
You can rest easy, though. So many illiterate people have taken up "bold-faced" in lieu of "bald-faced"/"bare-faced" that it is rapidly becoming perfectly accepted.
This is a very specific linguistic phenomenon, known to usage experts these days as an eggcorn [wikipedia.org] (itself a reference to people using the term eggcorn rather than acorn). There's an entry for bold-faced lie [lascribe.net] in the Eggcorn Database.
Eggcorns are interesting from a linguistic perspective, because they often involve three mechanisms which reinforce the change: (1) the new word or phrase sounds very similar to the old one, (2) the new word or phrase incorporates new elements that have a certain logical relationship to some meanings of the old word/phrase, and (3) the new components often substitute for archaic words or usage that often only have stuck around in obscure English idioms. (In this case, "bald" and "bold" sound similar, these types of lies often involve a sort of "boldness," and nobody uses the term "bald-faced" anymore outside of that idiom.)
Thus in tiny pieces a language is corrupted.
Meh. "Corruption" in language is a matter of perspective. Language naturally evolves. These types of "corruptions" have often been around for decades or even centuries. If they happen to date back more than a century or two, they're usually accepted as "legitimate English," even if their origin is as screwed up as your example (and often more so). If Shakespeare said it, by definition it's okay.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try to hold to "standards," particularly in formal writing. But at some point these things become a lost cause. (See, for example, the word "decimate," which comes from a Latin practice of reduction by 1/10th, i.e., reducing to 90% of the original strength or size. NOBODY uses the word to mean this anymore -- instead implying a much greater reduction in size, if not complete destruction -- and if you try to imply the original meaning outside of describing Roman army practices, no one would understand your meaning. Outside of specific historical usage, "decimate" simply means something else now.)
And sometimes the people who complain about linguistic "decay" and "corruption" are the worst offenders -- in their zeal to "fix" English and stamp out usages that sound wrong to them, they often end up creating their own stupid errors.
It's one of the reasons English spelling is so screwed up. See here [theweek.com] for a few quick examples of common English words where pretentious idiots tried to make English conform to a mistaken "rule" and added silent letters to words for no apparent reason.
TL;DR -- You're right, and careful writers should take heed. But easy on the "corruption" rant, lest you become a greater danger to English than those you criticize.
Re:Not the server (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of folks here on Slashdot are serious IT professionals. We deal with things like security policies and instances every day. A private email server in a basement somewhere, managed by a what the fuck yahoo, and totally not being able to be audited . . . that's grounds for firing in most companies is this world. If you ask your security folks, "What is the biggest security threat to your company?" They will answer, "The loose nuts behind the keyboard!"
Hilary Clinton is like Leona Helmsley, if anyone here is old enough to know who she was. She and her husband cheated left and right on their taxes, and then gave as an explanation, "Taxes are for little people!". Security policies are for little people. Yeah, but not for folks with sensitive knowledge of our foreign policy.
That is more or less what Hilliary said: "Yes, the government of the USA has security policies for employees, but they do not apply to me, because I am Hillary Clinton, and I am important!"
Sorry Hillary, if you are sending and receiving email on my server, you will abide by the rules, like everyone else, whoever you are. If you want to do government business on an unsecured email server . . . why don't you send your mail direct to Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un . . . ?
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the 'security policies for employees' you're talking about were not in place at the time - and private email use by people in her position was common. The only reason we're looking at her email now is the politically motivated Benghazi panel (number 3 is it? or 4?) has issued blanket subpoenas. And even there, the FBI isn't investigating whether her use of a private server - or even the deletion (if such a thing happened) of sensitive emails was problematic. The ONLY thing they're investigati
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I give a sh*t, because I don't. I know that this is a stupid attempt to weaken GOP foe; but still, WTF?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
CFR 1222 covering archival of Government communications was in effect from 2002, and State Department 12 FAM 541 to 12 FAM 545 covers sensitive but unclassified information (which includes things like meetings, schedules, promotions, personnel discussions) was in effect from 2005. She broke both of those, and they were in place for years before she was appointed SoS.
And if you had bothered to read these regulations you would see that she adhered to the letter of the law in both cases. An email was lawfully archived as long as she printed out the email or it was stored on a government server (any email she sent to government address would be stored on government servers, unless deleted by the recipient). The handling of senstive but unclassified information was in accordance with the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not the server (Score:5, Insightful)
Except if the server were hacked, we would have read the emails months ago.
When kiddies hack the server . . . they brag about it on Facebook. When professionals hack a server . . . they don't say anything, so they can keep getting intelligence from the server.
I find it the most stupidest thing in the world, that when people say, "Hey, Hillary's mail server was safe . . . otherwise we would have heard about it!"
Idiots.
The best spies in the world . . . you have never heard of . . . because they didn't get caught. If you rob the Bank of America of 10 million dollars . . . you don't brag about it it online in Facebook.
Do you think the Secret Squirrels in Russia or China would brag about hacking Hillary's emai? No, they will rather keep reading it.
Re:Not the server (Score:4, Interesting)
She already investigated herself... (Score:5, Funny)
and found no wrongdoing. Why are we still talking about this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you mean "What difference, at this point, does it make?"
Re: (Score:2)
"I did NOT email with that man !!!" (Score:3)
But then, I suppose is depends on what your definition of "is" is, doesn't it ?
You want to know what's wrong with US politics? (Score:2)
Let's see, someone is saying Clinton bad, we need Bush. Then we're treated to the entire BJ lie once again - as if the person who brought it up has any idea what actually transpired. Next up, we get the "Well, at least she's better than Trump" as if American really needs someone to head this country who is qualified because they are seen as being marginally better than a cock-sure moron.
But then we have people parroting Fox News lines and have to wonder how many pennie
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then we're treated to the entire BJ lie once again - as if the person who brought it up has any idea what actually transpired.
Systematic sexual harassment at the workplace. If every 16 year old female who has sex with a 19 year old male was 'raped' then the law should be enforced evenly. When a Chief Executive engages in sexual relations with a subordinate, the power dynamic is clearly in play.
Why do the rules change when the horndog happens to be a Liberal hero?
Doesn't an email thread mean many correspondents? (Score:2, Flamebait)
...correspondents who themselves presumably were trained in maintaining the integrity of secret communications -- ie, some kind of self-awareness of who the recipient of the email is and whether the address is considered to be secure?
If I'm Petraeus, wouldn't I have had second thoughts when replying to an email address of "hillary@hillaryisawesome-votehillary2016.com"?
Or did he just blindly go ahead -- "Dear Mrs. Clinton (I *think* this is your address), here is a list of all the special forces guys in the
it's a tempest in a teapot (Score:2)
honestly, it's just not a big deal. of course it's wrong, but it's minor level crap. it's trumped up because people hate her. which is irrational hate because hillary is quite boring milquetoast, there's nothing to be upset about her or excited about her
furthermore, we do not need another clinton or bush in the white house. we do not want dynasty politics in the usa
personally, i'm rooting for sanders v trump. sanders can't beat a empty suit like rubio, too many americans are too stupid for their own good wh
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
social conservatism is mostly hypocrisy and easy shallow judgment. faced with the same problems, all of those spouting holier-than-thou fire and brimstone would probably commit the same "sins". it's all about making yourself feel superior for reasons which are paper thin. social conservatism is a character defect: judge others in a do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do manner
and i love the current pope as he makes mincemeat of the propaganda plutocrats have successfully sold to conservative morons for years about the env
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I am sorry but the Pope is largely ignorant about most of the 'issues' he talks about. He should probably stick to religion. Anytime anyone from the media seriously questions him about issues, its clear he does not know who the players are and has not really thought it thru. I mean he admitted to having not given much thought to the middle class. I don't know you can put your self out there as an authority on income inequality without having thought about the middle class.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/. [weeklystandard.com]
Re:it's a tempest in a teapot (Score:4, Interesting)
the point is he speaks on the environment and the poor. both concerns are actually ancient principles of conservatism
since when did you hear a prominent conservative care about either thing?
never in the usa at least, empty lip service and bait-and-switch doesn't count. name one prominent conservative in the usa that, as an actual bedrock passion, that the poor and the environment is repeatedly emphasized?
not that they don't exist. they just aren't funded. the plutocrats and corporations select the obedient fake "conservatives" that can be used to bring in the votes, and then forgotten about, underpaid, and choked on pollution. because paying people well and not polluting costs money
oh yeah, forgot that part. you're an asshole and a moron. not empty insults, you are these things objectively, based on such a comment. that somehow your comment currently stands at a 3 is only a testament to the quality of this site slipping
Re: (Score:2)
i'm not really sure if you're angry that i cite the pope's frequent conversations on the environment as me "defining" conservationism (when it isn't even me doing that "defining", the pope is doing it, moron)
or if you're so fucking retarded you can't tell the difference between conservatism and conservationism
Re:it's a tempest in a teapot (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, let's see, who'm I leaving out?...Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich...
If someone had said that about another religious leader and dangerous propaganda spewing fool, say, Benjamin Netanyahu, you would piss yourself in fury.
The queen is dead. (Score:2)
I didn't inhale these emails (Score:5, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be nice (a naive thought) if we had a politician who:
1. We could trust
2. Put the country's best interest above his/her own
3. Wasn't in the pockets of the rich
Instead we have trump and clinton.
Maybe they should get married.
They both are the exact opposites of points 1 thru 3 above.
I wonder why people are feeling they are not represented?
Re: (Score:3)
I dislike Bernie Sanders' politics but he seems like a decent, respectable individual. I guess he doesn't stand a chance. If he wont lie or cheat how can he ever get elected President?
DICE DISCUS (Score:3)
Great....Now, I can get partisan rhetoric and little interesting facts from a bunch of self-proclaimed nerds and blow hards.
Discuss laws and politics that affect us in a real manner such as regulating how we do business. But, attacking for political (and, far too often, inaccurate or debunked) reasons should be limited to DISCUS of FOX News and not here.
Let's not turn /. into DICE DISCUS debacle and reverse course.
Poll (Score:3)
".... according to a Fox News poll .."
Well, that says it all, nothing to see, move on.
Re: (Score:2)
3 paragraph summary of the discussion (Score:2)
Clinton broke the law regarding how those emails should be handled and she very likely knew she was breaking the law. She did it anyway because it made it easier to keep the emails out of the public record and all it takes is some random aide to type a dumb line in an email and you have a big campaign scandal. This is a strong enough motivation that it sounds like many other people on both sides in similar positions had done very similar things.
I'm also dubious this would be a firing/jailing offence for "li
Amazing 'too busy' argument (Score:5, Informative)
Hillary has claimed that when she assumed the Secretary of State position she didn't spend a lot of time thinking about what email she would use, with the clear implication being she was too busy to think about such things... Meaning she wants us to believe she was 'so busy' that she arranged for a private email server, hiredxsomeonevto managevit, and paid a monthly stipend/salary for services rendered because it was easier than using a state department email account .
Reminds me of the Lois Lerner IRS scandal, wherein it was claimed the reason the IRS workers were asking so many probing, illegal questions of certain tax-exempt organizations was because the office was simply over-whelmed with applications. As seen in the email server scandal, the claim is that their natural reaction when overwhelmed with work is to take on additional, in some cases illegal, additional work...
And there is an alarming segment of the population that will parrot those illogical claims as a defense of possible illegal, at best improper actions.
meh (Score:3)
This is what happens when documents are subpoenaed (Score:3)
This catches any organisation that doesn't have centralised control over all emails.
First, when it's subpoenaed, you can't stop looking for them. "I can't find it" isn't an answer. "It's been destroyed" is the answer.
So you need to re-create the full body of emails on an email server, here's where you look, listed in order of importance and difficulty:
1) The email server.
2) Backups of the email server.
3) The email servers that talk to that server that you control.
4) The backups of those servers.
5) The individual PCs of the persons involved in the conversations.
6) The backups of those PCs.
7) Old, retired PCs in storage.
8) Any backups of those PCs.
If you, as an organisation are told by a court to find the emails, you hunt through _all_ the systems you control to find them. This is why organisations have centralised control over documents and emails with defined document destruction schedules. Otherwise, you get caught like Microsoft did in the Netscape trial where an email that was supposed to have been destroyed was found on someone's PC.
This does not mean that there was an intent to hide anything, only that it takes longer to build up the entire list.
Re:What a circus (Score:5, Funny)
Belt, Colonel or Steve?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Get all the facts straight (Score:2, Insightful)
It has ALWAYS been illegal to store classified information on an unclassified IS. Do you think State Department business is ever classified? A single shred of classified information means the whole thing has to be classified. Was the home server an approved classified IS? Of course not! That is a lengthy, cumbersome process that is achieved by following the RULES.
This matters because Hillary thinks she is above following the rules that millions of gov't workers follow every day and she is lying through her
Re: (Score:2)
the email where she asked and got mad at aids and others due to she wanted emails sent from top secret closed goverment network was a crime soon as she requested someone to do this ..there are people in jail for less then this but its okies its hillary
Re: For the love of donuts.. (Score:4, Interesting)
"Only" hope?
Obviously Someone has not heard about John McAfee 2016.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think McAfee is awesome and he and I have a lot in common, actually. However, I'd absolutely be unwilling to vote for him. He's crazier than I am and that's quite an achievement. I mean, yeah, I might vote for him because I enjoy "lulz" but, honestly, were I a caring individual who wanted to exercise his rights to help form a better society then, by no means, would I consider actually voting for John. I'd party with him. I'd snort hookers and screw blow with him. I'd even go out target practicing with him
Re: (Score:2)
He's an interesting mix between European-style big-government and libertarian-style individual freedom. I'm not sure that this would work out practically, as a large government is also harder to corral and keep in check. But he's definitely not fascist. The Republican he most resembles is probably Rand Paul. Take away Bernie's giant government checkbook and the two sound very similar.
Re: For the love of donuts.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem with today's American politics right wing america has gone batshit crazy.
No. The problem is that the wing-nuts on BOTH the right and left have gone batshit crazy. They make 99% of the noise but account for 5% of the population, if that. The rest of us are somewhere in the center and can't get a damn word in in edgewise.
Re: (Score:2)
No again.
The problem is that too many believe they know what's best for everyone, nationwide.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really that stupid? Or do you think everyone else is?
We didn't get single payer healthcare because the democrats lost their majority in the senate and they had to pull tricks like erasing a bill already passed by the house in order to put obama care into it and then using reconciliation rules which is reserved for budget bills to get the PPACA passed and on the desk of Obama before Brown took office and blocked it. Just because the
Re: For the love of donuts.. (Score:4, Insightful)
No it was not. The democrats did not have a super majority at the time. They relied on 2 independents to get pass the filibuster.. The house didn't like the senate bill and only agreed to pass the senate version of the bill by using reconciliation to amend the law before sending it to the president. This is because Brown had taken office and would have provided the vote necessary to filibuster any future votes on the amended law. The reconciliation process bypassed the ability to filibuster the amendments which allowed a simple majority of democrats to pass it.
That's just the facts. You are entitled to your opinion but not your facts. The democrats used out of the ordinary tactics to get the PPACA passed into law and had to do it in ways that would bypass legislative norms in order to get around the republicans. Hell, even wikipedia has an accurate accounting of it. Try reading a bit before believing whatever idiot told you different.
Re:Nerd news (Score:2)
Putting this conversation back at least partly into the nerd domain,
So, can anyone explain to me why the US government (top executive levels) doesn't have a standard secure e-mail communications system?
I honestly don't get it.
Re: (Score:3)
Putting this conversation back at least partly into the nerd domain,
So, can anyone explain to me why the US government (top executive levels) doesn't have a standard secure e-mail communications system?
I honestly don't get it.
OK
1. Government run Email systems are secure and are backed up regularly to prevent data loss, as required by law.
2. Government run Email systems are subject to Freedom of Information requests, as required by law.
3. Freedom of Information requests, for information stored on Government run Email systems are fulfilled by third party Government administrators without regard to whether it about embarrassing, immoral or illegal activities of a Former Sec of State, as required by law.
Hillary Clinton is a control
Re: Zuck so smart. Smart! (Score:2)
god damnit.how did i hit ""log in to comment" under one article and then end up at another article i never even intended to viait?
i'll say it again, slashdot: fuck your mobile site.
Re:....shortly before she entered office... (Score:4, Informative)
Right, so that's the best Fox could dig up? Email from before she was in office? Before her duty to keep all the emails!
You mean Reuters. The only involvement I could see in the article by Fox was a poll.
People need to stop frothing at the mouth at the mention of Fox. Even some of the articles on their site are not from them; they are from other sources such as Associated Press.